Mad world
WHY DOES FOOTBALL ATTRACT VIOLENT LOSERS?
I'm not talking about all football fans, it's a minority - but it's a big enough minority to cause trouble when a really large number of fans are concentrated in one place. I have in mind the events in Manchester this Wednesday just gone, when Glasgow Rangers played against Zenit St Petersburg. There's a report here .
The short version of the story is that over 100,000 Glasgow Rangers fans arrived in Manchester and camped out in the city centre. Most of them didn't have tickets to the game, but the City Council still encouraged them to come by setting up special "fan zones" where big screen TVs were set up and beer was readily available. I wonder how much that setting up the TVs, cordoning off the "fan zones" and policing them cost the taxpayers?
The results were predictable - Manchester city centre ground to a halt, sanitation facilities seem to have been basic to say the least, and even if there hadn't been any violence, the cleanup operation the next day would have been an appalling job to have to do. Fortunately I didn't have any business in town, but from the news reports the streets resembled an open sewer. Council staff have been working round the clock to get the place cleaned up.
But of course there was violence. The big screen TV in Piccadilly Gardens broke down and for some of these fans that was all the trigger that was needed to go on the rampage. Cars were overturned, a copper was attacked by a mob of thugs and a Russian fan was stabbed in the vicinity of the City of Manchester Stadium. It's a wonder no-one was killed.
The leader of the council, Richard Leese, appeared on TV the next day acting all shocked, but he had no reason to be. His council had encouraged those guys to be there - people always say that it's a minority who cause the trouble, but it's a minority that's always there. You gather 100,000+ football fans in one place and get them beered up, and there will be trouble, as sure as night follows day. But not to worry, because the local bars and hotels did a booming trade, so who cares about a few innocent people getting injured and the cost of the policing and cleanup - which will no doubt show up in next year's Council Tax bills?
Why the violence? Why football in particular? No other sport that I'm aware of attracts violence on this kind of level.
|
|
|
JUST HOW NUTTY CAN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND GET?
Extremely nutty, as it turns out. According to reports in the media, including the BBC website, the Church of England is considering legal action against Sony. For what reason? It seems Sony recently released a video game onto the market called "Resistance: The Fall of Man", which includes Manchester Cathedral in one brief scene. The game's one of those first person shoot 'em ups, apparently. Says Nigel McCulloch, the Bishop of Manchester: "It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem... For a global manufacturer to re-create one of our great cathedrals with photo realistic quality and then encourage people to have gun battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible." I suppose it could be construed as such, if the hero of the game was a drugged-up gangster or terrorist or somesuch. But having actually bothered to spend five minutes doing an internet search to find out what this game's about, it turns out the hero is actually defending the country from an alien invasion in an alternate version of the 1950s. It seems the action takes place all over the UK, and there just happens to be one scene where the hero seeks shelter in the cathedral, only to find it's been taken over by the enemy. Sounds good fun for me, not that I'll be buying it, because I don't own a Playstation and don't intend buying one in the foreseeable future. Personally I would describe fighting alien aggressors as quite a virtuous action, on or off church premises. Certainly if Manchester Cathedral was full of rampaging extraterrestrials, I would want someone to clean the place out, because I often walk past it. So what's the Bishop of Manchester's problem? On the one hand, if he's totally against his church being associated with violence - even in a defensive war - then presumably all the war memorials and battle flags will be removed from C of E property soon. If this is the case, then he is a tosspot. On the other hand, it's always possible that he's just heard about this game second-hand and launched a public attack on the manufacturers based on hearsay and without bothering to view the evidence for himself. If this is the case, then he is a tosspot. On the gripping hand, it could just be that he's cynically using this business as an excuse to squeeze some money out of the Sony corporation for the C of E's idea of "good causes" (there's already been some talk of Sony being pressurised to make a contribution to some probably doomed church-backed anti-gang project - my guess is they'll fold after a few days wrangling). If this is the case, then he is a tosspot. Those are the only options that I can think of at the moment. I leave it to the reader to decide what's most likely and to form an opinion of the strange characters who run the Church of England. For myself, I'm just glad I don't use the Bishop of Manchester as a moral or intellectual guide.
|
|
|
|
Another fine mess.
Apologies to my two or three regular readers for the current appearance of this blog. After several months of gradually deteriorating service, 20six have finally carried out their threat to go over to a new system - for what reason, I have no idea. The old system may have been a bit clunky in places, but at least it worked and it looked OK. The new system looks like it was knocked together over the weekend by a 16-year old IT student who was smoking too much Mary Jane.
20six also seem to have got themselves a new logo, which looks like someone jumping off a cliff - one of their customers, maybe? They definitely seem to be making an effort to drive people away.
I imagine it'll take me a while to learn to use the new system, so bear with me while I try and re-format it. Of course, if it turns out to be too hard to use, I can always find another provider - that's the beauty of a free market.
|
|
|
Bah! Humbug!
"Merry Christmas! Out upon Merry Christmas! What's Christmas time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer; a time for balancing your books and having every item in 'em through a round dozen of months presented dead against you? If I could work my will," said Scrooge indignantly, "every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should!"
So speaks Ebenezer Scrooge, the Winston Smith of the 19th Century. You know the story, it gets shown on telly every year - this is the harmless old geezer who gets terrorised by evil demonic entities through the night, just because they disapprove of his lifestyle choices, until his head's so messed up that he cracks and becomes just another Christmas zombie, throwing his hard-earned money around and inflicting his mindless seasonal cheer on all those who cross his path.
We're supposed to look down on Scrooge as he is at the start of the story, but those are true words he's using, aren't they? Even more true now than they were in Dickens' day. Christmas as most people practice it today is just an insane commercial runaround, where people feel pressured to knock themselves out hunting for presents they can't afford, to give to people who may not even want them. Not to mention all those ridiculous Christmas lights, inflatable Santas and Homer Simpsons that people have taken to "decorating" the outside of their houses with in recent years. And what's it all in aid of? To commemorate the birth of an oldtime religious leader who was born in a foreign land, two millenia ago, and probably not in December? The founder of a religion which large numbers of people don't even follow anymore? And if Jesus could have seen how his birth would end up being celebrated, would he even approve? More likely he'd see Christmas, 21st Century style, as a hedonistic vision of Hell.
The worst thing is, people feel under pressure to spend, spend, spend, whether they've got the money or not. You can't even walk into a supermarket without having your senses bombarded with Christmas rubbish. Naturally this is the time of year when banks put a particular emphasis on flogging their customers credit cards and personal loans. This is also well-known for being a time of year when the murder and suicide rates go up. There are plenty of people who get depressed at this time of year because they've got no money and everyone around them seems to have money to burn. I imagine the Samaritans get a lot more business this time of year, too - but if anyone reading this is feeling depressed over the holiday season, don't let that put you off calling them, at least they're one group of people who want to help and don't want your money.
Personally, I'm opting out as much as I can. I'll spend Christmas Day with my family, and I've sent a few cards out, but I'm not bothering with it otherwise. I'm not decorating my house inside or out, and I'm certainly not sticking an inflatable Santa on my roof. That laughing, red-coated clown is too symbolic of the whole materialistic mess for me. The credit card companies will have to do without my business this year, although I'm sure they'll still find enough mugs to keep them going. Good luck to you if you are celebrating Christmas, I just hope you didn't drive yourself into penury or work too hard getting ready for it. Life's stressful enough without deliberately piling it on, it's not worth it for just one day.
However you choose to spend the day, I hope you have a healthy and relaxing 25th December, and a rational New Year. That's what I intend to do.
Oh yes, and join the Anti Santa Liberation Army - you know it makes sense.
|
|
|
Space Cadets - The con is on, but does anyone care?
Despite my disapproval of the basic idea of Channel 4's Space Cadets, and it's about as bad as I thought it would be. I can't be the only one who thinks so either, because hardly anyone else seems to be watching it (certainly no-one I know), despite all the hype. I watched it initially to see if they would give away any clues about the location of the base in which it is supposedly being filmed. Instead of dropping hints, they practically gave the address, stating several times that it's an old airbase outside Ipswich (I don't know the area, but a lot of people reckon it's RAF Bentwaters). This is one of several things that make me wonder if there isn't more to this series than previously stated. If Channel 4 are genuinely trying to keep these contestants in isolation to con them into thinking they're going into space, you'd think the location of the base would be a closely-guarded secret. Instead, they're practically inviting people to crash the show. The fact that all the action seems to have been pre-recorded so far also seems to be a bit suspect, together with some of the behaviour of the contestants. I know they're supposed to be gullible and not prone to asking questions, but it seems to me that any average person who is hit with the surprise news that they'll soon be going into space as part of a TV game show would think to ask at least a few pertinant questions, such as:
Is it safe?
How can Channel 4 afford to sponsor this mission?
Can I phone my family before the launch?
How has Russia managed to develop and test a new type of spacecraft without it getting into the papers?
Why aren't we being given centrifuge training?
That kind of thing. You don't need to be knowledgable about space programme (beyond having seen it mentioned on the news) for at least one or two of these questions to have occurred to someone. And how is it that no-one has got scared and backed out of the "mission"? Out of a fairly random group of nine people, none of whom have a prior interest in space travel, I would have thought at least a couple of them wouldn't fancy it. Some people are of the opinion that actually all the "contestants" are actually actors, and that it's really the audience that's being conned. That would certainly fit the facts, although I don't know what the payoff would be in terms of giving the programme a satisfying denoument. I keep thinking their has to be a twist in the tale somehow, otherwise the programme makers are an even more feeble-minded bunch than I already think they are.
It's ironic that just as we're at the point in history where large-scale space tourism seems about to become a reality, Channel 4 decide to blow a pile of money on a series as pointless as this. If the premise of the series is as advertised, and the contestants really are being conned, it's pointless and cruel. If they're all actors and the audience is being conned, it's just pointless. I'll probably carry on watching it till the end, just out of curiosity, but it's not very entertaining, and it'll probably quickly be forgotten.
|
|
|
Space Cadets - Has British TV Finally Hit Rock Bottom?
I remember when Channel 4 first started, in the early 80s, it was the most consistently interesting and innovative TV channel in the UK at that time. There was always something on worth watching. Even the repeats were good. Somewehre along the line, Channel 4 (and British TV generally) lost the plot and now Channel 4's flagship programme is Big Brother - a programme that follows a bunch of undistinguished no-hopers who are locked up together for weeks on end - even more boring than filling in a job application form, why people follow it is a mystery to me. There's nothing in the format for anyone intelligent to take an interest in.
You'd think TV couldn't get any worse, but it's about to. Channel 4 have just announced that their latest "reality" TV programme is Space Cadets. The idea of this show is that they're going to take a group of people - selected for their "suggestability" - seclude them in an abandoned military base somewhere in the UK and try and con them into thinking that they're a) in Star City in Russia, b) being put through a genuine cosmonaut training course and c) actually going to take a flight into space. The climax of this series is apparently going to feature the "lucky winners" from this group being housed in a space shuttle simulator for five days while a view of the Earth from space is projected onto a screen outside the cockpit windows, in the hope of actually convincing them that they're in space. Then the truth will be revealed to them - that they've been conned and that millions of people have been sitting around at home, watching them and laughing at their stupidity. I predict a good possibility of a punch-up between disappointed contestants and Jonny Vaughan (the presenter of the programme).
So this is what TV companies are expecting us to find entertaining now? That's British popular culture in the early 21st Century? The production company which is making the programme (Endemol, which sounds like a brand of sleeping tablets to me) isn't saying exactly how much this programme is costing to make, but it won't be cheap. One figure I've heard is five million pounds, which sounds believable enough. They could have spent the same amount of money making a game show which would have had a real trip into space as the top prize. There are several companies getting ready to launch tourists into space on sub-orbital flights within the next few years - Virgin Galactic and Rocketplane Ltd both expect to begin commercial operations in a couple of years and are quoting ticket prices in the £100,000 to £200,000 price range - easily within the budget of a programme like this. That would be worth watching. Instead, Channel 4 would rather spend the money lying to people and subjecting them to public humiliation. It almost makes me want to take my TV down to the dump.
|
|
|
Attention MUFC hooligans - get a life!
I haven't blogged about the Manchester United buyout so far, because a) football bores me to tears and b) the rights and wrongs of the case are self-evident. But given the events of last night, and the fact that I live in Manchester, I suppose I ought to write something.
Quick recap for anyone who is in blissful ignorance of the revent events surrounding Manchester United Football Club: Years ago MUFC was floated on the stock market as part of its ongoing (and highly-successful) attempt to make as much money as possible. It's a sports club only in name now, in actuality it's become a massive marketing operation - the sports equivalent of Star Trek. The fans grumble a bit about being fleeced, but they still go out and buy all the merchandise, no-one forces them to do that. Of course the most important feature of a public limited company is that the shareholders are free to sell their shares to whoever they choose - that's part of the deal when they invest in a company in the first place. So it's always been a bit of a mystery to me why so many fans started complaining when a rich American by the name of Malcolm Glazer started buying up shares a few months ago with the intention of taking the "club" over. The fans seem to object to him being rich, an American, or a rich American - or something. Mr Glazer was successful, and now practically owns MUFC outright, despite noisy demonstrations from fans. That should have been the end of the story, just let him get on with running his new business while the fans buy the merchandise and watch the games - business as usual. Unfortunately, there's a noisy minority of "fans" who won't let it go, and have even resorted to making threats against Mr Glazer, his family, board members and anyone else they can think of. There was even a pitch invasion not long ago, during a reserve team match.
The worst incident so far happened at Old Trafford last night. Mr Glazer's three sons (and newly-elected board members) visited Old Trafford to inspect the premises and meet their opposite numbers in Manchester. The visit was low-key, but some of the quasi-fans found out and organised a "flying picket" of 200-300 hooligans to blockade Old Trafford while the Glazers were inside. By their own admission, these "fans" initiated force by stealing fencing from a neighbouring building site and using it to build road blocks to try to prevent the Glazer brothers from leaving, while chanting "Scum! Scum! Scum!". According to some reports, they also chanted "Glazer out!" (after putting up the barricades), "United not for sale!" (not now, it's not) and even "Die, Glazer! Die!". I can't personally confirm whether or not the latter charming slogans were really used, as only the first one was used in the BBC report I saw. Whatever, it was certainly a threatening situation, and fortunately Greater Manchester Police did an efficient job for once, and when the time came for the Glazers to leave, they did so in the back of a couple of police vans, seconds after the police had charged the hooligans and demolished the barricade. Incidentally, the vans belonged to the Tactical Aid Unit, which is based not far from where I live - among other things they handle firearms incidents, and they're not my favourite people, being the group that was put in charge of carrying out the mass theft of civilian-owned pistols in 1997. But in this case they seem to have done a decent job of work for once. Nice one Plod!
If you read some of the comments on this hooligan forum, you'll find that a lot of them seem to have been really into the violence - although they also complain about the allegedly heavy-handed tactics used by the cops against their "peaceful demonstration" (poor dears). Let's see, there were apparently about 100 coppers on the scene who were there to protect a group of people who hadn't done any harm to anyone, and up to 300 hooligans who were breaking the law because they objected to a legitimate business deal. There may have been individual abuses by cops, but in general I know which side I'm on. The footage they showed on the news didn't really last long enough to make a proper judgement, which is a pity because seeing these cretins start to panic when the cops charged them was fun.
What beats me is why people get so wound up about this business in the first place. It's not a political cause or a religion, it's just football - it's a game that a lot of people like to watch, nothing more. It's not a matter of life or death who owns it, and if you end up objecting that strongly to the current management for whatever reason, you can always follow another team (you see more City shirts than United shirts in my part of Manchester anyway). There are much more important things going on in the world to get upset about. I don't believe for one moment that the 300 losers who went out looking for trouble last night represent the average football fan - it's much more likely that they're the types who get banned from attending matches anyway, the types the real fans disavow. I'm talking about the sort of losers whose lives are so empty, whose self-esteem is so low, and whose minds are so blank, that the only way they can bring any kind of meaning to their lives is by getting together with a gang of fellow losers and having a ruck - and any excuse will do.
|
|
|
[next page]
