The 'Ephraim Hardcastle' column in today's Daily Mail contains a story about the famous radical barrister Michael Mansfield QC.
As I cannot link directly to that item in isolation from the rest of 'his' column - it's a pretty open secret that the name 'Ephraim Hardcastle' is a nom-de-plume for the Mail's regular columnist, Peter McKay - I'll reproduce it here in its entirety:
"Michael Mansfield QC, 67, says in his rather naffly-titled book, Memoirs of a Radical Lawyer, that, in his 1950s youth, growing up in the London suburb of Barnet, his mother 'cajoled me into joining the Young Conservatives so I could learn the quickstep and meet the right sort of girl'.
He had two wives - Melian Bordes, by whom he has five children, and documentary maker Yvette Vanson, with whom he has one.And his quickstep? Envious colleagues say few have niftier footwork when it comes to bagging lucrative criminal briefs. But why no knighthood for a QC of his eminence?
Surely it isn't being withheld because he represented the Royal Family's erstwhile friend, Mohamed Al Fayed? Mansfield says in his memoir that Prince Philip referred to Dodi Fayed as 'an oily bed-hopper'."
I don't think that's the reason at all. The reason he hasn't been honoured with a knighthood - frankly few barristers are, however eminent - is rather more straightforward; Mansfield is an avowed republican, as the following excerpt from website of ‘Republic’ The Campaign for an Elected Head of State, tends to confirm:
"The republican movement has been buoyed by Republic's recent success in challenging the oath of allegiance and launching its "Royal Finance Reform Charter". Republic's campaign is backed by many high profile republicans including Polly Toynbee and Michael Mansfield QC."
So, accepting for the purposes of this post that Mansfield is a man of principle, I would expect any self-respecting republican (a perfectly legitimate position to adopt, irrespetive of the Throne's profound disagreement with it) to reject the offer of a knighthood out of hand, or risk the accusation of hypocrisy.
Just two futher observations.
Firstly, I wonder why a 'republican' actively sought the status of Queen's Counsel; couldn't a self proclaimed socialist such as Mansfield have had just as successful and as high profile - not to mention lucrative - a career at the Bar without those two post-nominal letters, or did he seek them for the financial rewards they would bring?
And secondly, with people such as the increasingly comical Polly Toynbee and Mr Mansfield supporting the abolition of our monarchy, I'm reassured that my grandchildren will be celebrating the coronation of King William V's successsor in about seventy years' time...
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Kevin Myers, 'Irish' America and Irish Shibboleths...
As regular readers will doubtles be aware, The Throne is something of a fan of Irish Independent columnist Kevin Myers.
One of the reasons for that, in addition to his highly readable style, is his preparedness to write potentially unpopular articles, a number of which I have linked to here in the past.
True to form, his latest column attacks what he describes as "the national addiction for a tale of oppression, " based on the reaction to the death of (the unlamented) EM Kennedy, whilst simultaneously firing a broadside at 'Irish' America.
I recommend that you read it in its entirety.
One of the reasons for that, in addition to his highly readable style, is his preparedness to write potentially unpopular articles, a number of which I have linked to here in the past.
True to form, his latest column attacks what he describes as "the national addiction for a tale of oppression, " based on the reaction to the death of (the unlamented) EM Kennedy, whilst simultaneously firing a broadside at 'Irish' America.
I recommend that you read it in its entirety.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
More football predictions...
As promised, and admittedly a week or so later than I would have liked, I have finally managed to dust off the crystal ball and to come up with my predictions for the forthcoming Premier League season.
But before I give you my predicted final placings, I thought it would be appropriate to write a little about each team to demonstrate my thinking. I doing so, I have broken the twenty clubs down into four groups, the Lancastrians, the Midlanders, the Londoners and the Odds and Sods.
As I noted at the end of last season, teams based in Lancashire now constitute 40% of the Premier League. However, I see this season as being something of a variation on the theme of the Curate’s Egg for the Red Rose members, with some enjoying good, successful seasons and the others potentially toiling to avoid being drawn in to the relegation dog-fight. Amongst the former, of course are Manchester United and Liverpool, both of which I expect to find in the top four next May. That said, unlike many pundits (most of whom it seems to me actually played for the club!) I do not subscribe to the theory that this will be Liverpool’s season to lift the trophy. I think that the combination of the loss of Alonso and the presence of stronger teams will see that particular Holy Grail remain out of their reach for yet another year. Manchester United, on the other hand, have an unparalleled record of success in this competition in recent years and will doubtless go very close to winning it again.
United’s opponents from across Manchester, with the bounty of Sheikh Croesus behind them will also have a very good season. Quite whether that will translate into a top-four position, I am not sure, because whilst they have more strikers than Bob Crow, they look a little short in defence to me, which will always make them vulnerable to conceding goals in a way that the top four simply don’t do.
Everton will also have a good season and I expect them to qualify for the Europa League, or whatever it will be called by then, particularly if they manage to fend off the predations of Man City and hold on to Joleon Lescott.
Moving on to the other Lancastrians, I fear that newly promoted Burnley will be returning whence they came, irrespective of their putting up a good fight to retain their status. They simply do not have the team or resources to survive: sad, but true. Meanwhile, their closest neighbours and fiercest rivals, Blackburn Rovers should be well enough equipped to secure a respectable mid-table finish, given the managerial skills of Sam Allardyce. Ditto Bolton Wanderers under Gary Megson; but I have a sneaking feeling that Wigan could find this season tough going, having lost an inspirational manager in Steve Bruce and a couple of important players.
Of the Midlanders, it will not surprise any of you to learn that I expect Aston Villa to lead their particular pack. However, shorn of Gareth Barry and with their one expensive summer signing (Downing) not expected to be fit until the New Year, I doubt that they will perform as well as they did last term. Birmingham City will regard staying in the division this season as a success and I fully expect them to do so. I cannot, however say the same for Mick McCarthy’s Wolves, who I think are in danger of becoming another yo-yo club like West Brom: too good for the Championship and not good enough for the Premier League. Finally for this group, and stretching geographical boundaries to breaking point, I see Stoke City having a season similar to the one that they enjoyed last time: their home form will keep them up, together with the odd point or three they collect on their travels.
Turning to the Londoners, no one will be surprised to see that I think that both Chelsea and Arsenal will be in the top four at the end of the season. Chelsea in particular have not lost any of their marquee players (unlike their northern rivals) and must have an excellent chance of winning the League for the first time for a couple of seasons. Arsenal, meanwhile, under the shrewd, but irritating Arsene Wenger will probably just about pip Man City to fourth place – but only just. Tottenham will be a far better prospect under Harry Redknapp than they were this time last year under Juande Ramos. That said, I don’t see them squeezing into the Europa League places unless seventh place would be sufficient for them to do so. Whilst I don’t foresee any problems for them, I don’t see Fulham repeating their success of last season and a solid mid-table finish is the best they can hope for. West Ham, on the other hand, under the mercurial Zola could, repeat could, be this year’s surprise package; however their financial position could spoil what would have otherwise been a season of progress and achievement.
No relegation worries for the Londoners, then.
Sadly, I can’t say the same for all of the members of my final group, the Odds and Sods. I fear that Portsmouth could collapse both financially and in terms of their haemorrhaging players at an alarming rate. Unless their Sheikh gets his hand in his pocket and buys the club very, very soon, I can hear the Pompey chimes ringing at Championship grounds in 2010-2011. Hull City, meanwhile will once again survive by the skin of their Tiger teeth, leaving Phil Brown a couple of shades lighter than his usual mahogany. Finally, Sunderland. I have a sneaking suspicion that this could be a breakthrough season for the Black Cats: they have a new, wealthy owner, an excellent manager in Steve Bruce and a squad recently reinforced by some quality players, such as Darren Bent. There will be no relegation worries at the Stadium of Light this year – far from it.
So, this is how I see the final league table next May:
1. Chelsea
2. Manchester Utd
3. Liverpool
4. Arsenal
5. Manchester City
6. Everton
7. Spurs
8. Aston Villa
9. West Ham
10. Sunderland
11. Fulham
12. Blackburn Rovers
13. Bolton Wanderers
14. Stoke City
15. Wigan Athletic
16. Birmingham City
17. Hull City
18. Wolves
19. Portsmouth
20. Burnley
Will I be as successful with my predictions as I was last season?
We will find out next May and once again, I will hold myself up to potential ridicule by comparing those predictions with what really happened…
But before I give you my predicted final placings, I thought it would be appropriate to write a little about each team to demonstrate my thinking. I doing so, I have broken the twenty clubs down into four groups, the Lancastrians, the Midlanders, the Londoners and the Odds and Sods.
As I noted at the end of last season, teams based in Lancashire now constitute 40% of the Premier League. However, I see this season as being something of a variation on the theme of the Curate’s Egg for the Red Rose members, with some enjoying good, successful seasons and the others potentially toiling to avoid being drawn in to the relegation dog-fight. Amongst the former, of course are Manchester United and Liverpool, both of which I expect to find in the top four next May. That said, unlike many pundits (most of whom it seems to me actually played for the club!) I do not subscribe to the theory that this will be Liverpool’s season to lift the trophy. I think that the combination of the loss of Alonso and the presence of stronger teams will see that particular Holy Grail remain out of their reach for yet another year. Manchester United, on the other hand, have an unparalleled record of success in this competition in recent years and will doubtless go very close to winning it again.
United’s opponents from across Manchester, with the bounty of Sheikh Croesus behind them will also have a very good season. Quite whether that will translate into a top-four position, I am not sure, because whilst they have more strikers than Bob Crow, they look a little short in defence to me, which will always make them vulnerable to conceding goals in a way that the top four simply don’t do.
Everton will also have a good season and I expect them to qualify for the Europa League, or whatever it will be called by then, particularly if they manage to fend off the predations of Man City and hold on to Joleon Lescott.
Moving on to the other Lancastrians, I fear that newly promoted Burnley will be returning whence they came, irrespective of their putting up a good fight to retain their status. They simply do not have the team or resources to survive: sad, but true. Meanwhile, their closest neighbours and fiercest rivals, Blackburn Rovers should be well enough equipped to secure a respectable mid-table finish, given the managerial skills of Sam Allardyce. Ditto Bolton Wanderers under Gary Megson; but I have a sneaking feeling that Wigan could find this season tough going, having lost an inspirational manager in Steve Bruce and a couple of important players.
Of the Midlanders, it will not surprise any of you to learn that I expect Aston Villa to lead their particular pack. However, shorn of Gareth Barry and with their one expensive summer signing (Downing) not expected to be fit until the New Year, I doubt that they will perform as well as they did last term. Birmingham City will regard staying in the division this season as a success and I fully expect them to do so. I cannot, however say the same for Mick McCarthy’s Wolves, who I think are in danger of becoming another yo-yo club like West Brom: too good for the Championship and not good enough for the Premier League. Finally for this group, and stretching geographical boundaries to breaking point, I see Stoke City having a season similar to the one that they enjoyed last time: their home form will keep them up, together with the odd point or three they collect on their travels.
Turning to the Londoners, no one will be surprised to see that I think that both Chelsea and Arsenal will be in the top four at the end of the season. Chelsea in particular have not lost any of their marquee players (unlike their northern rivals) and must have an excellent chance of winning the League for the first time for a couple of seasons. Arsenal, meanwhile, under the shrewd, but irritating Arsene Wenger will probably just about pip Man City to fourth place – but only just. Tottenham will be a far better prospect under Harry Redknapp than they were this time last year under Juande Ramos. That said, I don’t see them squeezing into the Europa League places unless seventh place would be sufficient for them to do so. Whilst I don’t foresee any problems for them, I don’t see Fulham repeating their success of last season and a solid mid-table finish is the best they can hope for. West Ham, on the other hand, under the mercurial Zola could, repeat could, be this year’s surprise package; however their financial position could spoil what would have otherwise been a season of progress and achievement.
No relegation worries for the Londoners, then.
Sadly, I can’t say the same for all of the members of my final group, the Odds and Sods. I fear that Portsmouth could collapse both financially and in terms of their haemorrhaging players at an alarming rate. Unless their Sheikh gets his hand in his pocket and buys the club very, very soon, I can hear the Pompey chimes ringing at Championship grounds in 2010-2011. Hull City, meanwhile will once again survive by the skin of their Tiger teeth, leaving Phil Brown a couple of shades lighter than his usual mahogany. Finally, Sunderland. I have a sneaking suspicion that this could be a breakthrough season for the Black Cats: they have a new, wealthy owner, an excellent manager in Steve Bruce and a squad recently reinforced by some quality players, such as Darren Bent. There will be no relegation worries at the Stadium of Light this year – far from it.
So, this is how I see the final league table next May:
1. Chelsea
2. Manchester Utd
3. Liverpool
4. Arsenal
5. Manchester City
6. Everton
7. Spurs
8. Aston Villa
9. West Ham
10. Sunderland
11. Fulham
12. Blackburn Rovers
13. Bolton Wanderers
14. Stoke City
15. Wigan Athletic
16. Birmingham City
17. Hull City
18. Wolves
19. Portsmouth
20. Burnley
Will I be as successful with my predictions as I was last season?
We will find out next May and once again, I will hold myself up to potential ridicule by comparing those predictions with what really happened…
Labels:
entertainment,
Footy,
Predictions
Friday, August 14, 2009
How are the (self-supposed) mighty fallen...
How indeed.
Just fifteen short months ago, footballer David Bentley, then of Blackburn Rovers, had the world at his undoubtedly talented feet. He had just finished a successful season with his club and, having broken into the England team, was being spoken of as the 'new David Beckham'.
Those of us as interested in the back pages of the newspapers as we are in the front ones could not avoid acres of coverage, in which he explained, amongst other things, his love of DIY and how he overcame a gambling problem.
At the same time, those same articles began to mention that Bentley saw his footballing future away from Lancashire, at one of the four clubs then (and now) capable of launching a challenge for a Champions' League place, where he could also improve his international chances.
He and his agent began to openly court such a move, against the undoubtedly wiser (and possibly hypocrtical) counsel of his then manager, Mark Hughes, who, having advised him to stay at Ewood Park for at least another year, himself left the club for Manchester City and Thaksin Shinawatra's allegedly bloodstained Baht. Irrespective of that advice from a man who's pedigree was there to be respected, Bentley and his advisors believed their own publicity and the agitation for a move gathered pace.
Unfortunately for Bentley, none of the top four clubs were interested in acquiring his services, but then up popped Juande Ramos' Tottenham - the club Bentley supposedly supported as a boy - with a bid of fifteen million pounds, and the deal was swiftly done.
Indeed, by the time the transfer went through, I know a good many Blackburn fans who would have willingly taken the day off work, filled their car with petrol and driven him to London themselves, simply to rid their club of his disruptive presence.
Bentley described the transfer as his 'dream' move, but all too quickly from his perspective, the dream began to sour. For whatever reason - it is alleged that juvenile stupidity during an England get-together may have played a part - the famously professional Fabio Cappello jettisoned him from the national squad, never to return.
So far, so bad, but worse was to come. Ramos went the way of all flesh after a disastrous start to the season which saw Tottenham bottom of the league, to be replaced by everybody's favourite Cockney geezer, 'appy 'arry Redknapp, who quickly decided that Bentley had no place in his best (or indeed any) Spurs eleven and promptly dropped him.
Further humiliation was heaped on Bentley when, selected to play in the Carling Cup tie at Burnley - Blackburn Rovers nearest neighbours and fiercest rivals - he was withdrawn at half time, following a performance of quite unique incompetence.
To compound matters, from Easter onwards, Redknapp made it clear that Bentley had no future at Spurs, and was actively advising him to seek employment at another club, in order to 'rebuild' his career; the footballing equivalent of a failed X Factor audition.
So, twelve months after ignoring the advice of a man who had managed him into the England side, Bentley had lost his England place, lost his place in the Spurs team and had been told in no uncertain terms that he was surplus to requirements at White Hart Lane.
Then this happened.
Well at least he'll be able to afford a driver to take him to training whilst he serves his latest disqualification, but as I have titled this post 'how are the mighty fallen'.
I wonder if he wishes now that he'd followed Mark Hughes' advice and stayed at Blackburn for another year...
Just fifteen short months ago, footballer David Bentley, then of Blackburn Rovers, had the world at his undoubtedly talented feet. He had just finished a successful season with his club and, having broken into the England team, was being spoken of as the 'new David Beckham'.
Those of us as interested in the back pages of the newspapers as we are in the front ones could not avoid acres of coverage, in which he explained, amongst other things, his love of DIY and how he overcame a gambling problem.
At the same time, those same articles began to mention that Bentley saw his footballing future away from Lancashire, at one of the four clubs then (and now) capable of launching a challenge for a Champions' League place, where he could also improve his international chances.
He and his agent began to openly court such a move, against the undoubtedly wiser (and possibly hypocrtical) counsel of his then manager, Mark Hughes, who, having advised him to stay at Ewood Park for at least another year, himself left the club for Manchester City and Thaksin Shinawatra's allegedly bloodstained Baht. Irrespective of that advice from a man who's pedigree was there to be respected, Bentley and his advisors believed their own publicity and the agitation for a move gathered pace.
Unfortunately for Bentley, none of the top four clubs were interested in acquiring his services, but then up popped Juande Ramos' Tottenham - the club Bentley supposedly supported as a boy - with a bid of fifteen million pounds, and the deal was swiftly done.
Indeed, by the time the transfer went through, I know a good many Blackburn fans who would have willingly taken the day off work, filled their car with petrol and driven him to London themselves, simply to rid their club of his disruptive presence.
Bentley described the transfer as his 'dream' move, but all too quickly from his perspective, the dream began to sour. For whatever reason - it is alleged that juvenile stupidity during an England get-together may have played a part - the famously professional Fabio Cappello jettisoned him from the national squad, never to return.
So far, so bad, but worse was to come. Ramos went the way of all flesh after a disastrous start to the season which saw Tottenham bottom of the league, to be replaced by everybody's favourite Cockney geezer, 'appy 'arry Redknapp, who quickly decided that Bentley had no place in his best (or indeed any) Spurs eleven and promptly dropped him.
Further humiliation was heaped on Bentley when, selected to play in the Carling Cup tie at Burnley - Blackburn Rovers nearest neighbours and fiercest rivals - he was withdrawn at half time, following a performance of quite unique incompetence.
To compound matters, from Easter onwards, Redknapp made it clear that Bentley had no future at Spurs, and was actively advising him to seek employment at another club, in order to 'rebuild' his career; the footballing equivalent of a failed X Factor audition.
So, twelve months after ignoring the advice of a man who had managed him into the England side, Bentley had lost his England place, lost his place in the Spurs team and had been told in no uncertain terms that he was surplus to requirements at White Hart Lane.
Then this happened.
Well at least he'll be able to afford a driver to take him to training whilst he serves his latest disqualification, but as I have titled this post 'how are the mighty fallen'.
I wonder if he wishes now that he'd followed Mark Hughes' advice and stayed at Blackburn for another year...
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Two sacks, or three, Mr Heathcoat-Amory?
Whilst strolling home from my regular twice-weekly run, I spotted this sign and the accompanying, erm, pile on a country lane in Old Langho near Whalley.
Granted, it's in a reasonably well-hidden corner of the Ribble Valley, and a conservative 230 miles from his home in Somerset, but what a pity David Heathcoat-Amory MP didn't happen upon it by chance.
Just think of the trouble he might have avoided...
Friday, July 24, 2009
Steven Gerrard: acquitted and innocent...
Just over four months ago, I posted this update to a post I wrote in January of this year about the Steven Gerrard 'assault' case.
I will not bore you all by rehearsing the points I made in those posts - the links are there for you to read at your leisure - but forgive me for reminding you that they both referred to the presumption of innocence granted to those charged with offences inthis country; a presumption which many in the press chose to virtually ignore in questioning whether Gerrard was fit to play for either his country or his club, because he had been charged with assault - a matter which was subseuently dropped before it went to trial - and affray.
Well the wheels of justice have now turned, Mr Gerrard has been tried and acquitted of that allegation.
And for those in the press who possibly wanted to see him convicted, allow me to point to the words of the trial judge, Henry Globe QC, in discharging and releasing him:
"The verdict is a credible verdict on the full facts of this case, and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact... what at first sight to the casual observer may seem to have been a clear-cut case against you of unlawful violence, has been nowhere near as clear-cut upon careful analysis of the evidence."
And that, in a couple of sentences, is why we have the presumption of innocence; because in a trial situation, when evidence is tested, it is often found to be far more opaque than it first appeared.
I wonder if all those journalists who salivated so obviously over Gerrard's arrest and subsequent trial will have the decency to print articles as large as their sensational originals in apologising to him and declaiming his innocence?
I won't hold my breath waiting for them to appear.
I will not bore you all by rehearsing the points I made in those posts - the links are there for you to read at your leisure - but forgive me for reminding you that they both referred to the presumption of innocence granted to those charged with offences inthis country; a presumption which many in the press chose to virtually ignore in questioning whether Gerrard was fit to play for either his country or his club, because he had been charged with assault - a matter which was subseuently dropped before it went to trial - and affray.
Well the wheels of justice have now turned, Mr Gerrard has been tried and acquitted of that allegation.
And for those in the press who possibly wanted to see him convicted, allow me to point to the words of the trial judge, Henry Globe QC, in discharging and releasing him:
"The verdict is a credible verdict on the full facts of this case, and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact... what at first sight to the casual observer may seem to have been a clear-cut case against you of unlawful violence, has been nowhere near as clear-cut upon careful analysis of the evidence."
And that, in a couple of sentences, is why we have the presumption of innocence; because in a trial situation, when evidence is tested, it is often found to be far more opaque than it first appeared.
I wonder if all those journalists who salivated so obviously over Gerrard's arrest and subsequent trial will have the decency to print articles as large as their sensational originals in apologising to him and declaiming his innocence?
I won't hold my breath waiting for them to appear.
Labels:
Blowing my own trumpet,
Crime and punishment,
Footy,
law,
Tall poppies
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Kevin Myers on the Irish public sector...
By way of a gentle reintroduction to my ramblings, here is another article by one of my favourite columnists, Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent, in which he lays into the feather-bedded public sector in the Republic.
I don't know what you think, but I wouldn't have thought that the Irish trades union movement or Irish public sector workers in general will be toasting Mr Myers' health this evening...
Do you?
I don't know what you think, but I wouldn't have thought that the Irish trades union movement or Irish public sector workers in general will be toasting Mr Myers' health this evening...
Do you?
Labels:
Credit crunch,
Ireland,
Kevin Myers,
To hell in a handcart
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Excuses old and new and a rediscovered passion...
Well, once again, it's been a while since my last post and the reasons for my lack of productivity are a combinaion of the familiar and the new.
Put briefly, I've been very busy at work again, but in all honesty, not so busy that I couldn't have tapped out a quick post or two, had I been minded to do so; and therein lies the second reason: during my recent editing exercise, I simply got out of the habit of posting and at the same time, lost my enthusiasm for doing so, too.
As if that combination wasn't toxic enough, a further conspirator raised its head in the form of my renewed interest in the history of mediaeval England, which has seen me with my head in a book for a couple of hours most evenings, the latest of which is Marc Morris's excellent biography of Edward I, "A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain".
Those of you familiar with the Throne will have anticipated that I bridled slightly at the use of the word 'Britain' in the title of the book - Edward was king of England - but other than that admittedly minor quibble, it is a good read at 480 pages.
Now I've finished that one, I'm planning to move on to similar sized works on the life and reign of his son Edward II (red-hot poker, anyone?) and subsequently that of his grandson, the arguably even greater Edward III.
Should keep me out of trouble, whilst I attempt to recover my writing 'mojo'...
Put briefly, I've been very busy at work again, but in all honesty, not so busy that I couldn't have tapped out a quick post or two, had I been minded to do so; and therein lies the second reason: during my recent editing exercise, I simply got out of the habit of posting and at the same time, lost my enthusiasm for doing so, too.
As if that combination wasn't toxic enough, a further conspirator raised its head in the form of my renewed interest in the history of mediaeval England, which has seen me with my head in a book for a couple of hours most evenings, the latest of which is Marc Morris's excellent biography of Edward I, "A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain".
Those of you familiar with the Throne will have anticipated that I bridled slightly at the use of the word 'Britain' in the title of the book - Edward was king of England - but other than that admittedly minor quibble, it is a good read at 480 pages.
Now I've finished that one, I'm planning to move on to similar sized works on the life and reign of his son Edward II (red-hot poker, anyone?) and subsequently that of his grandson, the arguably even greater Edward III.
Should keep me out of trouble, whilst I attempt to recover my writing 'mojo'...
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Finished...
Well that became something of a mammoth task, but I'm glad to say I've now completed reading and weeding out old posts from the very beginning of my rambling here at the Throne in August 2006.
I may even be able to write some new ones soon...
I may even be able to write some new ones soon...
Friday, May 29, 2009
Editing and generally tidying up...

Having read a significant proportion of my 'back catalogue' over the past week or so, I decided to remove some of the dead wood from the archives.
As some of you may have found yourself, once you start pruning, it's difficult to know where to stop, particularly when, like me, you are your own fiercest critic.
Consequently, with that somewhat time-consuming work still in progress, new posts will be a little thin on the ground for the next few days.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Football predictions...How did I do?
As promised (or should that be threatened) in my two previous posts, it's time to examine my ability as a football pundit, by comparing the predictions I made in August as to where each of the clubs in the English Premier League would find themselves at the end of the season with where they actually found themselves.
Reproduced below are the final league placings and alongside them in red, what I had predicted:
1. Manchester United (Man United)
2. Liverpool (Chelsea)
3. Chelsea (Arsenal)
4. Arsenal (Liverpool)
5. Everton (Everton)
6. Aston Villa (Aston Villa)
7. Fulham (Portsmouth)
8. Spurs (Spurs)
9. West Ham (Sunderland)
10. Manchester City (Newcastle)
11. Wigan (Man City)
12. Stoke (West Ham)
13. Bolton (Blackburn)
14. Portsmouth (Wigan)
15. Blackburn (Bolton)
16. Sunderland (Fulham)
17. Hull (Boro)
18. Newcastle (West Brom)
19. Middlesborough (Stoke)
20. West Brom (Hull)
Well, starting with the good points, I got four out of the top eight in exactly the right position, and - allowing myself a little latitude - correctly identified seven of the clubs occupying the top eight places, with only a now rather eccentric choice of Portsmouth to finish seventh spoiling my set.
Not bad.
But before get too carried away, let's go to the opposite end of the table. Of the three clubs I tipped for the drop, only one, West Brom, was actually relegated and even then, I got their position wrong. And whilst I'm pointing out inaccuracies, I also predicted that the Baggies would be joined in the Championship next season by Stoke City, who finished a very creditable twelfth, eleven points above the relegation zone and Hull City, who survived by the skin of their teeth and one incredibly precious point.
I also have to concede that as late as the day before yesterday, I predicted that Newcastle would stay up (oh dear) at Hull's expense.
Wrong again!
Other than that, I significantly overestimated how Sunderland would fare, suggesting that they would finish ninth, whereas, of course, they were still sweating profusely on the last day of the season.
Those glaring errors aside, I think I can accurately categorise the remainder of my predictions as being 'right desert, wrong tent', missing a number of bulls' eyes by one or two places.
In fact, I actually got more of my predictions spot on than the Daily Mail's Neil Ashton, who's article prompted me to consult the Throne's murky crystal ball in the first place. He only hit the spot with two suggestions, one of which was Manchester United, which, forgive the observation, but a blind man on a galloping horse could have foreseen.
Still, I'd better not give up the day job...
Those of you not as keen on football as I am will doubtless be pleased to read - if indeed you are still reading - that there will be no more posts on the subjct until next August, when I repeat this exercise for the season 2009-2010.
Oh goody! I hear you all cry...
Reproduced below are the final league placings and alongside them in red, what I had predicted:
1. Manchester United (Man United)
2. Liverpool (Chelsea)
3. Chelsea (Arsenal)
4. Arsenal (Liverpool)
5. Everton (Everton)
6. Aston Villa (Aston Villa)
7. Fulham (Portsmouth)
8. Spurs (Spurs)
9. West Ham (Sunderland)
10. Manchester City (Newcastle)
11. Wigan (Man City)
12. Stoke (West Ham)
13. Bolton (Blackburn)
14. Portsmouth (Wigan)
15. Blackburn (Bolton)
16. Sunderland (Fulham)
17. Hull (Boro)
18. Newcastle (West Brom)
19. Middlesborough (Stoke)
20. West Brom (Hull)
Well, starting with the good points, I got four out of the top eight in exactly the right position, and - allowing myself a little latitude - correctly identified seven of the clubs occupying the top eight places, with only a now rather eccentric choice of Portsmouth to finish seventh spoiling my set.
Not bad.
But before get too carried away, let's go to the opposite end of the table. Of the three clubs I tipped for the drop, only one, West Brom, was actually relegated and even then, I got their position wrong. And whilst I'm pointing out inaccuracies, I also predicted that the Baggies would be joined in the Championship next season by Stoke City, who finished a very creditable twelfth, eleven points above the relegation zone and Hull City, who survived by the skin of their teeth and one incredibly precious point.
I also have to concede that as late as the day before yesterday, I predicted that Newcastle would stay up (oh dear) at Hull's expense.
Wrong again!
Other than that, I significantly overestimated how Sunderland would fare, suggesting that they would finish ninth, whereas, of course, they were still sweating profusely on the last day of the season.
Those glaring errors aside, I think I can accurately categorise the remainder of my predictions as being 'right desert, wrong tent', missing a number of bulls' eyes by one or two places.
In fact, I actually got more of my predictions spot on than the Daily Mail's Neil Ashton, who's article prompted me to consult the Throne's murky crystal ball in the first place. He only hit the spot with two suggestions, one of which was Manchester United, which, forgive the observation, but a blind man on a galloping horse could have foreseen.
Still, I'd better not give up the day job...
Those of you not as keen on football as I am will doubtless be pleased to read - if indeed you are still reading - that there will be no more posts on the subjct until next August, when I repeat this exercise for the season 2009-2010.
Oh goody! I hear you all cry...
Labels:
Blowing my own trumpet,
Footy,
Predictions
Well done, Burnley...
As promised on Saturday evening, I'll be writing a longer football related post later on, but it would be remiss of me to fail to offer my congratulations to Burnley Football Club on their promotion to the Premier League, having beaten Sheffield United 1 - 0 at Wembley.
Having been by far the better side for the full ninety minutes, no-one but the most myopic Sheffield United fan could argue that Burnley didn't deserve their success on today's evidence.
So eight Lancashire clubs in next season's Premier League it is, then; there'll be a local derby every other week!
All we need now is for Preston North End to come up next season...
Having been by far the better side for the full ninety minutes, no-one but the most myopic Sheffield United fan could argue that Burnley didn't deserve their success on today's evidence.
So eight Lancashire clubs in next season's Premier League it is, then; there'll be a local derby every other week!
All we need now is for Preston North End to come up next season...
Labels:
credit where credit is due,
Footy
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The Premier League denouement...
As I type these words at shortly after 9.15 on Saturday evening, those of you familiar with the world of English football will know that the next forty-eight hours will be the most exciting – and nerve-racking - of the season for the players and supporters of six clubs.
I say six, because after the nerve-shredding tension of the battle to stave off relegation is played out on Sunday afternoon, during which two of Sunderland, Hull City (who started the season with such promise), Newcastle United and Middlesborough will fall through the trap door into the relative oblivion of the Championship, comes the play-off final for promotion to the untold wealth of the Premier League.
Turning first to the battle to avoid relegation, it would appear that barring an entirely unlikely set of freak results, in which they would have to win, whilst all the others lost and in the process make up a deficit of five in terms of their goal difference, Middlesborough will be plying their trade in the second tier of English football next year.
So far so predictable.
But then comes the battle between the remaining three clubs, Sunderland, Hull and Newcastle to avoid the final berth on football’s Titanic. Whichever one of them eventually hits the iceberg, it will be a dark day for football in the north east, because all three of the combatants are from that part of the country. Yes, I know that when people refer to the north east, they are generally speaking about an area starting in Newcastle and ranging as far south as Middlesborough, but on what reading of geography is the city of Hull not in the north east of England?
For what it’s worth, gazing into the Throne’s rather murky crystal ball, I think that Newcastle and Sunderland will escape the drop by the skin of their teeth, whilst Hull will join Middlesborough and West Bromwich Albion on the unwanted journey south.
Meanwhile, on Monday afternoon, a game of at least equal, if not greater, importance will kick off at 4.00pm at Wembley.
That match is, of course, the Championship play-off final between Sheffield United and Burnley, with the victors securing a place in next season’s Premier League and with it the trifling matter of £50 million pounds or so of television money.
Living where I do, I know a good many Burnley supporters (more just recently than ever before; I wonder why…) and contrary to popular belief, very few of them eat bananas with their feet.
Interestingly, if Burnley are successful, they will become the eighth Lancashire club in the Premier League (0r 40% of its membership), joining near neighbours Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers, Wigan Athletic and the two Manchester and Liverpool clubs in the elite of English football.
What a contrast those riches would be in comparison to the footballing wilderness which is Yorkshire and the north east of England in general.
Fortunately, I will be watching all of those issues unravel as a neutral, but I dare say, having seen my club in both relegation danger and in the play-offs in previous years, that nerves are jangling tonight in those six towns and cities in northern England.
On a slightly different tack, those of you with longer memories may remember that on 12th August last year, I posted an item in which I predicted the way the Premier League table would look at the end of the season.
On Monday, I propose to hold my pundit status up to ridicule by comparing my predictions with what actually happened.
I can hear the gales of laughter already…
I say six, because after the nerve-shredding tension of the battle to stave off relegation is played out on Sunday afternoon, during which two of Sunderland, Hull City (who started the season with such promise), Newcastle United and Middlesborough will fall through the trap door into the relative oblivion of the Championship, comes the play-off final for promotion to the untold wealth of the Premier League.
Turning first to the battle to avoid relegation, it would appear that barring an entirely unlikely set of freak results, in which they would have to win, whilst all the others lost and in the process make up a deficit of five in terms of their goal difference, Middlesborough will be plying their trade in the second tier of English football next year.
So far so predictable.
But then comes the battle between the remaining three clubs, Sunderland, Hull and Newcastle to avoid the final berth on football’s Titanic. Whichever one of them eventually hits the iceberg, it will be a dark day for football in the north east, because all three of the combatants are from that part of the country. Yes, I know that when people refer to the north east, they are generally speaking about an area starting in Newcastle and ranging as far south as Middlesborough, but on what reading of geography is the city of Hull not in the north east of England?
For what it’s worth, gazing into the Throne’s rather murky crystal ball, I think that Newcastle and Sunderland will escape the drop by the skin of their teeth, whilst Hull will join Middlesborough and West Bromwich Albion on the unwanted journey south.
Meanwhile, on Monday afternoon, a game of at least equal, if not greater, importance will kick off at 4.00pm at Wembley.
That match is, of course, the Championship play-off final between Sheffield United and Burnley, with the victors securing a place in next season’s Premier League and with it the trifling matter of £50 million pounds or so of television money.
Living where I do, I know a good many Burnley supporters (more just recently than ever before; I wonder why…) and contrary to popular belief, very few of them eat bananas with their feet.
Interestingly, if Burnley are successful, they will become the eighth Lancashire club in the Premier League (0r 40% of its membership), joining near neighbours Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers, Wigan Athletic and the two Manchester and Liverpool clubs in the elite of English football.
What a contrast those riches would be in comparison to the footballing wilderness which is Yorkshire and the north east of England in general.
Fortunately, I will be watching all of those issues unravel as a neutral, but I dare say, having seen my club in both relegation danger and in the play-offs in previous years, that nerves are jangling tonight in those six towns and cities in northern England.
On a slightly different tack, those of you with longer memories may remember that on 12th August last year, I posted an item in which I predicted the way the Premier League table would look at the end of the season.
On Monday, I propose to hold my pundit status up to ridicule by comparing my predictions with what actually happened.
I can hear the gales of laughter already…
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The prosecution of Ali Dizaei: a game of high stakes
I see that the CPS has decided to prosecute Commander Ali Dizaei for offences of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in a public office, arising out of an incident which occurred last autumn outside a London restaurant, during which he had arrested a man on what were, allegedly, trumped up charges.
Regular readers will be familiar with the stance adopted by the Throne in respect of those charged with criminal offences: all of them - whoever they are, however famous, or even notorious -are entitled to the presumption of innocence until such time that their guilt - if such is the finding of the court - is established beyond reasonable doubt. This, of course extends to Mr Dizaei every bit as much as it did to Steven Gerrard, about whom I wrote when he was arrested and charged with offences earlier this year.
As such, and with the matter now sub-judice, I do not propose to offer any further comment on the case itself; but there are one or two issues arising from it which do merit further discussion.
Firstly, I am sure that the decision to prosecute such a high profile individual - Dizaei is both the President and legal advisor to the openly activist Black Police Association, and as a Metropolitan Police Commander one of the most senior police officers in the country - was not taken lightly. Indeed, I'm absolutely sure that the lawyer responsible for deciding in favour of his prosecution, Gaon Hart, will have agonised over it endlessly. Only time and due process will show whether that decision was justified and we must await the final result of the prosecution to make that assessment.
Secondly, if I were Nick Hardwick, the Chair(man) of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), I would have sought the most cast-iron assurances possible from the team which investigated the case against Dizaei that they had left no stone unturned in their search for evidence. Because, and make no mistake about it, if the IPCC investigation comes up short, the resulting enquiry will be very uncomfortable indeed for Hardwick, who might even find his position untenable if the enquiry is severely criticised.
Thirdly, of course, this is a high-stakes case for the Metropolitan Police; a fact which will not have been lost on its Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson and the entirety of his command team, because not only was Dizaei acquitted the last time the Met investigated him, but as a consequnce of that acquittal, they agreed to pay him several tens of thousands of pounds and promote him to the rank of Chief Superintendent in order to persuade him not to sue them and to smooth his way back into the force.
If he were to be acquitted a second time, I shudder to think what the settlement 'price' would be; I just hope Her Majesty the Queen is still enjoying her normal, robust good health at the time, or his eyes might even alight on her position.
More seriously, though, I'm sure that the attitude of the BPA, as expressed by Alfred John, the Chair(man) of the London branch, who described the decision to prosecute Dizaei as 'outrageous' and 'the result of personal vendettas' is already causing Sir Paul more than a little concern, for reasons so obvious that I needn't waste my time by recording them here.
All in all, then, a game of high stakes for all involved; from Dizaei himself, who will face professional ruin if convicted, to the IPCC and CPS, who will face severe (and potentially career-ending) criticism if their work is found to be of a less than excellent standard and to the BPA which faces the potential embarrassment of the conviction of a man who is not only their national president and legal advisor, but in many ways the 'face' of their organisation and finally, the Metropolitan Police who will have a significant issue on their hands, whatever the verdict.
A game of high stakes indeed.
Regular readers will be familiar with the stance adopted by the Throne in respect of those charged with criminal offences: all of them - whoever they are, however famous, or even notorious -are entitled to the presumption of innocence until such time that their guilt - if such is the finding of the court - is established beyond reasonable doubt. This, of course extends to Mr Dizaei every bit as much as it did to Steven Gerrard, about whom I wrote when he was arrested and charged with offences earlier this year.
As such, and with the matter now sub-judice, I do not propose to offer any further comment on the case itself; but there are one or two issues arising from it which do merit further discussion.
Firstly, I am sure that the decision to prosecute such a high profile individual - Dizaei is both the President and legal advisor to the openly activist Black Police Association, and as a Metropolitan Police Commander one of the most senior police officers in the country - was not taken lightly. Indeed, I'm absolutely sure that the lawyer responsible for deciding in favour of his prosecution, Gaon Hart, will have agonised over it endlessly. Only time and due process will show whether that decision was justified and we must await the final result of the prosecution to make that assessment.
Secondly, if I were Nick Hardwick, the Chair(man) of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), I would have sought the most cast-iron assurances possible from the team which investigated the case against Dizaei that they had left no stone unturned in their search for evidence. Because, and make no mistake about it, if the IPCC investigation comes up short, the resulting enquiry will be very uncomfortable indeed for Hardwick, who might even find his position untenable if the enquiry is severely criticised.
Thirdly, of course, this is a high-stakes case for the Metropolitan Police; a fact which will not have been lost on its Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson and the entirety of his command team, because not only was Dizaei acquitted the last time the Met investigated him, but as a consequnce of that acquittal, they agreed to pay him several tens of thousands of pounds and promote him to the rank of Chief Superintendent in order to persuade him not to sue them and to smooth his way back into the force.
If he were to be acquitted a second time, I shudder to think what the settlement 'price' would be; I just hope Her Majesty the Queen is still enjoying her normal, robust good health at the time, or his eyes might even alight on her position.
More seriously, though, I'm sure that the attitude of the BPA, as expressed by Alfred John, the Chair(man) of the London branch, who described the decision to prosecute Dizaei as 'outrageous' and 'the result of personal vendettas' is already causing Sir Paul more than a little concern, for reasons so obvious that I needn't waste my time by recording them here.
All in all, then, a game of high stakes for all involved; from Dizaei himself, who will face professional ruin if convicted, to the IPCC and CPS, who will face severe (and potentially career-ending) criticism if their work is found to be of a less than excellent standard and to the BPA which faces the potential embarrassment of the conviction of a man who is not only their national president and legal advisor, but in many ways the 'face' of their organisation and finally, the Metropolitan Police who will have a significant issue on their hands, whatever the verdict.
A game of high stakes indeed.
Labels:
Ali Dizaei,
Crime and punishment,
police
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Self indulgent stat pron...
Quite astonishingly, on 14th May 2009, the Throne welcomed a reader from the Lebanon, making that benighted land the one hundredth country to host a visitor.
Just as astonishing (to me, anyway) is the fact that only slightly over 55% of my visitors are from the 'U'K, with visitors from the US accounting for over 22% of readers.
As traditionalists say in this part of England, "Who'd o' thowt it!"
(Rough translation for the uninitiated: "Who would have thought it?" or "They are a somewhat unexpected set of statistics.")
Just as astonishing (to me, anyway) is the fact that only slightly over 55% of my visitors are from the 'U'K, with visitors from the US accounting for over 22% of readers.
As traditionalists say in this part of England, "Who'd o' thowt it!"
(Rough translation for the uninitiated: "Who would have thought it?" or "They are a somewhat unexpected set of statistics.")
The true face of Ireland's theocracy...
The more I see and read about stories such as this and this, the more I go down on bended knee and thank God that I was not brought up in an Irish orphanage run by tyrannical and all-too-frequently sexually depraved Catholic priests.
Or, had I been born both female and Irish, that I was not judged to be a ‘fallen woman’ on what appears in many cases to have been the flimsiest of pretexts and as a consequence of that judgement, to have been incarcerated by vicious nuns for the remainder of my life and used as slave labour in one of the Catholic church’s Magdalen laundries.
Please do not misinterpret my first two paragraphs as an attack on Ireland as a whole, the Irish, or on the wider Catholic Church, because they aren’t meant to be any of those things.
What they are intended to be is an attack on the unaccountable Catholic theocracy which, it seems to me, had the whip hand in the governance of the twenty-six counties from the time of the partition, until as recently as twenty years or so ago.
And unless any of my Irish (or indeed any other) readers can tell me differently, this was a uniquely Irish phenomenon, because I am not aware that the Church was similarly powerful, or of any similar allegations being made about Church-run institutions in other predominantly Catholic countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Poland or Italy, or for that matter, the entirety of Latin America or the Philippines.
Of course an unacceptable proportion of children brought up in institution settings in this country and probably every other country in the world were subjected to abuse, both physical and sexual, by their so-called 'carers'.
But those carers were not priests, nuns or monks and none of them were able, with the tacit support of their senior hierarchy, to imprison and enslave women for the rest of their lives on the mere suspicion of moral turpitude.
None of them set themselves up as moral exemplars and demanded such grovelling deference from lay people that it all but smothered any opposition, labelling their few (and morally courageous) detractors as lunatics or heretics.
I am glad to see that the final traces of those theocratic shackles are now being removed from the people of Ireland and the publication of the report into that sixty-year catalogue of abuse and cover-ups prepared by the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse, is another important step along that long and often painful path.
The final step, though, has to be the prosecution of those responsible for carrying out the abuse. Only then will the outrageous injustices, compounded by their being committed by the so-called Godly, finally be put to bed and seeing the reaction of some of their victims on the news today, I rather get the impression that they will not rest until their assailants and jailers are brought to justice.
And more power to their collective elbow, I say.
Or, had I been born both female and Irish, that I was not judged to be a ‘fallen woman’ on what appears in many cases to have been the flimsiest of pretexts and as a consequence of that judgement, to have been incarcerated by vicious nuns for the remainder of my life and used as slave labour in one of the Catholic church’s Magdalen laundries.
Please do not misinterpret my first two paragraphs as an attack on Ireland as a whole, the Irish, or on the wider Catholic Church, because they aren’t meant to be any of those things.
What they are intended to be is an attack on the unaccountable Catholic theocracy which, it seems to me, had the whip hand in the governance of the twenty-six counties from the time of the partition, until as recently as twenty years or so ago.
And unless any of my Irish (or indeed any other) readers can tell me differently, this was a uniquely Irish phenomenon, because I am not aware that the Church was similarly powerful, or of any similar allegations being made about Church-run institutions in other predominantly Catholic countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Poland or Italy, or for that matter, the entirety of Latin America or the Philippines.
Of course an unacceptable proportion of children brought up in institution settings in this country and probably every other country in the world were subjected to abuse, both physical and sexual, by their so-called 'carers'.
But those carers were not priests, nuns or monks and none of them were able, with the tacit support of their senior hierarchy, to imprison and enslave women for the rest of their lives on the mere suspicion of moral turpitude.
None of them set themselves up as moral exemplars and demanded such grovelling deference from lay people that it all but smothered any opposition, labelling their few (and morally courageous) detractors as lunatics or heretics.
I am glad to see that the final traces of those theocratic shackles are now being removed from the people of Ireland and the publication of the report into that sixty-year catalogue of abuse and cover-ups prepared by the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse, is another important step along that long and often painful path.
The final step, though, has to be the prosecution of those responsible for carrying out the abuse. Only then will the outrageous injustices, compounded by their being committed by the so-called Godly, finally be put to bed and seeing the reaction of some of their victims on the news today, I rather get the impression that they will not rest until their assailants and jailers are brought to justice.
And more power to their collective elbow, I say.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
I wish to register a complaint...
A friend of mine emailed me the following gems yesterday evening and I thought they were worth sharing with a wider audience...
This was sent from Thomas Cook Holidays - listing some of the guests' complaints during the season.
(Survey by Thos Cook and ABTA)
"I think it should be explained in the brochure that the local store does not sell proper biscuits like custard creams or ginger nuts."
"It's lazy of the local shopkeepers to close in the afternoons. I often needed to buy things during 'siesta' time - this should be banned."
"On my holiday to Goa in India , I was disgusted to find that almost every restaurant served curry. I don't like spicy food at all."
"We booked an excursion to a water park but no-one told us we had to bring our swimming costumes and towels."
A tourist at a top African game lodge overlooking a waterhole, who spotted a visibly aroused elephant, complained that the sight of this rampant beast ruined his honeymoon by making him feel "inadequate".
A woman threatened to call police after claiming that she'd been locked in by staff. When in fact, she had mistaken the "do not disturb" sign on the back of the door as a warning to remain in the room.
"The beach was too sandy."
"We found the sand was not like the sand in the brochure. Your brochure shows the sand as yellow but it was white."
A guest at a Novotel in Australia complained his soup was too thick and strong. He was inadvertently slurping the gravy at the time.
"Topless sunbathing on the beach should be banned. The holiday w as ruined as my husband spent all day looking at other women."
"We bought 'Ray-Ban' sunglasses for five Euros (£3.50) from a street trader, only to find out they were fake."
"No-one told us there would be fish in the sea. The children were startled."
"It took us nine hours to fly home from Jamaica to England it only took the Americans three hours to get home."
"I compared the size of our one-bedroom apartment to our friends' three-bedroom apartment and ours was significantly smaller."
"The brochure stated: 'No hairdressers at the accommodation'. We're trainee hairdressers - will we be OK staying here?"
"There are too many Spanish people. The receptionist speaks Spanish. The food is Spanish. Too many foreigners."
"We had to queue outside with no air conditioning."
"It is your duty as a tour operator to advise us of noisy or unruly guests before we travel."
"I was bitten by a mosquito - no-one said they could bite."
"My fiancé and I booked a twin-bedded room but we were placed in a double-bedded room. We now hold you responsible for the fact that I find myself pregnant. This would not have happened if you had put us in the room that we booked."
Heaven help us!
This was sent from Thomas Cook Holidays - listing some of the guests' complaints during the season.
(Survey by Thos Cook and ABTA)
"I think it should be explained in the brochure that the local store does not sell proper biscuits like custard creams or ginger nuts."
"It's lazy of the local shopkeepers to close in the afternoons. I often needed to buy things during 'siesta' time - this should be banned."
"On my holiday to Goa in India , I was disgusted to find that almost every restaurant served curry. I don't like spicy food at all."
"We booked an excursion to a water park but no-one told us we had to bring our swimming costumes and towels."
A tourist at a top African game lodge overlooking a waterhole, who spotted a visibly aroused elephant, complained that the sight of this rampant beast ruined his honeymoon by making him feel "inadequate".
A woman threatened to call police after claiming that she'd been locked in by staff. When in fact, she had mistaken the "do not disturb" sign on the back of the door as a warning to remain in the room.
"The beach was too sandy."
"We found the sand was not like the sand in the brochure. Your brochure shows the sand as yellow but it was white."
A guest at a Novotel in Australia complained his soup was too thick and strong. He was inadvertently slurping the gravy at the time.
"Topless sunbathing on the beach should be banned. The holiday w as ruined as my husband spent all day looking at other women."
"We bought 'Ray-Ban' sunglasses for five Euros (£3.50) from a street trader, only to find out they were fake."
"No-one told us there would be fish in the sea. The children were startled."
"It took us nine hours to fly home from Jamaica to England it only took the Americans three hours to get home."
"I compared the size of our one-bedroom apartment to our friends' three-bedroom apartment and ours was significantly smaller."
"The brochure stated: 'No hairdressers at the accommodation'. We're trainee hairdressers - will we be OK staying here?"
"There are too many Spanish people. The receptionist speaks Spanish. The food is Spanish. Too many foreigners."
"We had to queue outside with no air conditioning."
"It is your duty as a tour operator to advise us of noisy or unruly guests before we travel."
"I was bitten by a mosquito - no-one said they could bite."
"My fiancé and I booked a twin-bedded room but we were placed in a double-bedded room. We now hold you responsible for the fact that I find myself pregnant. This would not have happened if you had put us in the room that we booked."
Heaven help us!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Awe-inspiring England...
Regular visitors to the Throne will have noticed that I have recently begun posting pictures of the Cross of St George being flown that I stumble across on my travels around Lancashire.
The one depicted to the left was flying from the flag pole on top of the illuminated inner keep at Clitheroe Castle late last night. Whilst the photograph in question, taken on my mobile phone, doesn't really do the view justice - please believe me when I say it was a truly marvellous, indeed awe-inspiring, sight.
I suspect that I will struggle to find a better, or more fitting background for our flag, no matter how hard, or for how long I try...
Meanwhile the one flying from the top of RibbleValley Council offices that I posted about a couple of weeks ago has been removed. Let's hope it only a temporary absence.
Labels:
Clitheroe,
England,
Proper order,
the Cross of St George
Thursday, April 23, 2009
On, on, you noblest English!
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Irish health and English taxes...
Regular visitors to the Throne – how many posts have I begun with those, or similar words recently – will know that I maintain a keen interest in Irish politics and Irish affairs generally.
As a consequence this story from The Times, which was also widely reported elsewhere, came as something of a surprise, because I had never seen neither hide nor hair of it before in either the English or Irish press and I dare say very few other people at this side of the Irish Sea, except those working at the Department of Health, knew of it either.
What struck me about the subject matter discussed in the article was not the fact that our civil servants had somehow managed to pay too much to the Irish as our contribution to the healthcare of an estimated 50,000 Irish citizens who had previously lived and worked in this country and paid National Insurance contributions, but that we gave them anything at all.
And before I go on, please do not take my preceding paragraph as some sort of slight on Ireland or the Irish; it is most certainly not meant as anything of the kind.
What I do criticise is the fact that for forty years, British governments of both colours have seen fit to send large sums of money across the Irish Sea, which should never have been sent.
Quite simply, those fifty-thousand Irish citizens who came to this country, presumably in search of employment which they couldn’t obtain in Ireland, paid their taxes here in order to share in the benefits of the services those levies provided for the rest of us.
Similarly, their National Insurance contributions, paid to the British Exchequer, entitled them to medical treatment free at the point of delivery in British hospitals and doctors’ surgeries as and when they required it whilst they lived here; just as would be the case for people of any other nationality living and working here and paying their taxes like the rest of us.
However, in my view, as soon as those Irish citizens returned to Ireland and ceased paying our taxes and National Insurance contributions, they no longer had, or continue to have, any ongoing call on the services provided by this country for the benefit of its residents and citizens. In essence, those concerned paid for a form of insurance policy which was valid whilst they were living here; it was not and should never have been considered to be a savings scheme with their contributions repayable to the Irish Government on their return to the State. On any sensible view, once they returned home and stopped paying, the policy and the contract it represented should have been regarded as lapsed, leaving no further obligation on either party, and the Irish Health Service should have taken the strain.
Again, I don’t blame the Irish for this frankly unacceptable waste of (largely English) taxpayers’ money; they would have been stupid to reject what, as recently as 2007, was effectively a gift of 9,000 Euros or about £8,500 per annum from HMG for each and every one of those 50,000 people.
No, as I made plain earlier in this post, this gratuitous and frankly unacceptable waste of public money is the responsibility the successive British Governments who allowed it to persist unchecked for so long.
The time has come to cancel that particular national standing order forthwith, as it is not our responsibility legally, morally or medically to go on paying it.
As a consequence this story from The Times, which was also widely reported elsewhere, came as something of a surprise, because I had never seen neither hide nor hair of it before in either the English or Irish press and I dare say very few other people at this side of the Irish Sea, except those working at the Department of Health, knew of it either.
What struck me about the subject matter discussed in the article was not the fact that our civil servants had somehow managed to pay too much to the Irish as our contribution to the healthcare of an estimated 50,000 Irish citizens who had previously lived and worked in this country and paid National Insurance contributions, but that we gave them anything at all.
And before I go on, please do not take my preceding paragraph as some sort of slight on Ireland or the Irish; it is most certainly not meant as anything of the kind.
What I do criticise is the fact that for forty years, British governments of both colours have seen fit to send large sums of money across the Irish Sea, which should never have been sent.
Quite simply, those fifty-thousand Irish citizens who came to this country, presumably in search of employment which they couldn’t obtain in Ireland, paid their taxes here in order to share in the benefits of the services those levies provided for the rest of us.
Similarly, their National Insurance contributions, paid to the British Exchequer, entitled them to medical treatment free at the point of delivery in British hospitals and doctors’ surgeries as and when they required it whilst they lived here; just as would be the case for people of any other nationality living and working here and paying their taxes like the rest of us.
However, in my view, as soon as those Irish citizens returned to Ireland and ceased paying our taxes and National Insurance contributions, they no longer had, or continue to have, any ongoing call on the services provided by this country for the benefit of its residents and citizens. In essence, those concerned paid for a form of insurance policy which was valid whilst they were living here; it was not and should never have been considered to be a savings scheme with their contributions repayable to the Irish Government on their return to the State. On any sensible view, once they returned home and stopped paying, the policy and the contract it represented should have been regarded as lapsed, leaving no further obligation on either party, and the Irish Health Service should have taken the strain.
Again, I don’t blame the Irish for this frankly unacceptable waste of (largely English) taxpayers’ money; they would have been stupid to reject what, as recently as 2007, was effectively a gift of 9,000 Euros or about £8,500 per annum from HMG for each and every one of those 50,000 people.
No, as I made plain earlier in this post, this gratuitous and frankly unacceptable waste of public money is the responsibility the successive British Governments who allowed it to persist unchecked for so long.
The time has come to cancel that particular national standing order forthwith, as it is not our responsibility legally, morally or medically to go on paying it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

