Flawed logic

In the fallout from last week's General Election I find myself amazed at how some people are taken in by the flawed logic regarding the criticism of our voting system.

Whilst having no particular axe to grind, it does annoy me that those who wish to argue for some form of Proportional Representation do so by implying that it is 'self-evidently' true that the current system is unfair.

It isn't.

The latest person to jump on this bandwagon was Nigel Farage, who told us how unfair it was on his own party, Ukip, and the Greens, to have acquired so few seats in Parliament, given the number of votes they secured nationally. In particular, he compared the parties' totals with those secured by the SNP in Scotland.

Leaving aside the obvious observation that the population in Scotland is far less than in England, and that the SNP does not field candidates in England, there is, to me, a far more serious flaw in his thinking. Let me explain by coming at it from the other direction.

Supposing I was describing the present British political system to someone from the other side of the world who knew nothing about our country. If asked whether we are represented fairly, I might put it like this: In every locality/village/town each resident person over the age of 18 (regardless of status, wealth, etc.) is entitled to one vote, to vote for an individual who will represent that locality/village/town in the national Parliament. Anyone can stand for election, and the person who wins most votes duly represents that locality/village/town (we call them constituencies). Now, what could be fairer than that?

The flaw in the argument of Farage (and others like him) is applying a different category (namely, the total number of votes secured nationally) to that system. But we don't vote in one constituency called the United Kingdom!

Now, some might come back at me and say that the problem with the constituency model is that each of those elected individuals (with, at times, one or two exceptions) are allied to a particular political party, enabling a smaller proportion of those elected to wield considerable power by ganging up on all the other elected individuals. That's what we call a Government!

Don't get me wrong: I'm not totally heartless or lacking in empathy. I can appreciate the frustration of Ukip and Green Party members (and Liberals in times past) who believe the system doesn't give them a fair crack of the whip.

If they want to argue that we should do away with our historic constituency-based parliamentary set-up - with all its attendant virtues and strengths - and go for a pure percentage based national vote (a bit like a referendum), then fine. If they want to argue that the latter is better suited to modern political life, and would make for better national debate and decision-making, then fine.

But don't do so by claiming that the present system is so obviously and self-evidently unfair.

Getting round the wrong way words

One of the most powerful aspects of social media is its capacity to make us feel valued, respected and listened to by our fellow human beings.

If a witty/serious/emotive/sarcastic (delete as appropriate) post on facebook causes several of our 'friends' to click 'like' we immediately feel affirmed.

Even though we know (because we do it ourselves) that it takes little or no effort or thought to click 'like' something inside of us likes to believe that when others 'like' something we have posted it was among the most significant and memorable experiences they had that day. This, of course, is the genius behind the whole 'like' aspect of facebook.

Another life affirming element is birthdays. Because we tell facebook our birth date they thoughtfully have installed a system whereby all our 'friends' are reminded that it is our birthday... and so can send us a birthday greeting.

Isn't it wonderful to receive so many greetings? The chances are the number of people who say 'Happy birthday' via social media vastly outweighs the number of birthday cards that would ever drop through our letterbox. It takes far less effort, of course, to send a facebook greeting. The only snag is you have to be logged in on the right day.

Which brings me to the topic that prompted this (fairly mild) Fifty and Fed Up rant. Often, if someone has not been on facebook on the day in question they will send a belated message.

It amazes me how often on facebook I see people posting the phrase "Happy belated birthday". Er, No. The birthday wasn't late. It arrived as punctually as ever. On the same date, funnily enough, as it did last year. What was late was the greeting. I think what our 'friends' are trying to say in their haste is: "Belated Happy Birthday."

The morning after...

Please don't tell me "we were beaten by a world-class striker"...

Yes, Luis Suarez is a world-class striker and, yes, when utterly inept, schoolboy defending handed him two wonderful chances on a platter, he took them the way you would expect a world-class striker to do.

But that hardly tells the whole story ... or even part of it.

England went into this World Cup with low expectations and we have certainly fulfilled them. Watching England play is, on the whole, a depressing - not to mention frustrating - experience. Frankly we look light years behind top teams in terms of quality and basic footballing ability.

There was a time when we at least had a good defence, and were known for it. We didn't perhaps score as freely as some of the 'flair' nations (and that was sometimes our undoing) but we were hard to beat. Now, let's be honest, every time our opponents are coming forward with the ball we sit on the edge of our seats in fear and trepidation. Our defenders no longer tackle effectively (without clumsily fouling), they no longer head the ball with conviction, and their sense of positional play is almost non-existent.

This lack of basic footballing ability (among defenders) is also our undoing when going forward (although you seldom hear the 'pundits' talk about this). The way international football is played nowadays you need defenders who are comfortable on the ball and creative with it. You could have the best midfield in the world (which we don't by a long stretch) but if you don't have defenders who play their part in attack, moving the ball at pace and helping create space and openings, you will always struggle - as England do.

There's not a lot of point criticising Roy Hodgson (even if you think he has made mistakes and opted for the wrong line-ups as, personally, I do) because the problem is far, far bigger than one man's capacity to solve. And yet when the inquests and the moaning follow on the back of an early exit what will happen? Next to nothing.

There is something very, very wrong with the English game. We have - we are told - a very good 'product' in the Premier League. Huge, almost incomprehensible amounts of money are swilling about in the domestic game and yet clearly not to the benefit of domestic footballing talent.

In India the Indian Premier League is a highly marketable, successful form of Twenty20 cricket. The league has rules that not only limit the number of foreigners teams can have in the their squads and on the field of play, but also requires teams to have a certain number of emerging, young Indian players in their squads. Of course the overseas players thrill the crowds, but Indian players get plenty of opportunity to develop their game. In other words, here is one financial gravy train that is actually set up to try and improve domestic one-day cricket in India. And it seems to be working.

Now someone will say "but football is just not cricket". What's more, EU regulations on free working practices would not allow such restrictions to be placed on English football teams (if that's true, there's at least one good good reason to be out of the EU, perhaps...!).

At the end of the day, however, there just doesn't seem to be the will at club level, or the clout at national, administrative level to really do something about it. Perhaps too much of the money in the English game comes from abroad. Arguably the last time purely English money transformed a club was when Jack Walker's fortune turned Blackburn Rovers into a champion-challenging outfit in the mid-1990s. Look at the proportion of British players in the starting line-ups of the leading teams back then. An internet search into how such clubs as Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, AC Milan, Barcelona and Real Madrid are set up and run today provides interesting, sobering reading.

I could go on but, to be honest, I don't know what the answer is. Nothing guarantees ultimate success, of course. Only one nation can win the World Cup, which happens only every four years - and there are a number of great footballing nations out there. But we want to see England at least competing; at least at the 'top table' of nations who have a chance. Greg Dyke has been ridiculed for coming in and advocating major changes. I have no axe to grind for or against him - but he, or anyone else for that matter, has a huge task if things are ever going to be turned around.

Personally I can't see it at the moment. The richer English clubs will continue to buy short term success and will continue to line the wallets of overseas players, who now constitute the vast majority of starting line-ups in those successful teams. In the meantime, we will go on wishing - fruitlessly - that we had a national team that could stand alongside the stronger footballing nations of the world.

More of the same...

The appalling commercial abuse of the 'beautiful game' reared its ugly head once again this week, with the unveiling of England's new kits for this summer's World Cup in Brazil.

The new World Cup first kit

Two things incensed me enough to reach for the laptop and blog again. First the price. Apparently the new shirt is going to retail at £90. Yes, £90. That is nothing short of disgraceful. One footballer, QPR's Joey Barton, commented on his twitter page: "£90 for the new England shirt is taking the mickey out of the fans. When will it stop? Appalling. Football again allows commercialism to eat away at its soul. Something has got to give."

Quite right. Shadow Sports Minister Clive Efford was also quoted as attacking not only the price but the frequency with which kits are changed nowadays, which is the second thing I find unacceptable.

The new World Cup second kit

The latest (until now) England kit was unveiled only last May. That means it has lasted less than a year. That's just seven England football games. When it was launched (Nike had taken over the contract from Umbro) I naively assumed what they had come up with would at least see us through to the World Cup.

The kits that lasted less than a year

As I sat bemusing the shoddy state of football nowadays I was reminded of some comments made by Bob Wilson, the former Arsenal goalkeeper, who hosted the Saturday lunchtime Football Focus programme on BBC1 for twenty-odd years. Bob, who I think trained as a schoolteacher before taking up football, was always an articulate man who made sensible comments worth listening to.

I remember one occasion him bemoaning the fact that many teams now (this was probably in the 80s or, at a push, early 90s) changed their kits every three years or so. It would, he pointed out, put a burden on parents, whose footballing-loving offspring naturally wanted their favourite team's latest kit.

Every three years or so. Look at what happens now. It is, indeed, an indication of the awful creeping commercialism that, as Barton put it, is eating away at the soul of the game. What would Bob make of the scandalous state of kit changes today?

Nobody is listening...

Ever had a feeling of 'deja-vu'? You might, if you've been reading this blog.

Last weekend, FA Cup fifth round tie: Everton v Swansea, at Everton's Goodison Park.

Right. Everton, as every football fan knows, play in royal blue. Swansea, as most football fans will know, play in white. Fine. So, why do Swansea run out in their 'away' kit, which, for this year at least, comprises dark blue (almost purple) shirts with garish sections of yellow on them, and yellow shorts?

Yes, we've visited this rant before, when Spurs played Inter-Milan in a European tie. It can only be for commercial reasons. There aren't that many sides who play in white (which would necessitate a change of strip by the away team) so it must be that Swansea have to take every opportunity to play in their away kit, to please their sponsors - and particularly if the game is being shown live on ITV, of course.

Trouble is, those dark blue shirts (even with the hideous yellow section across the shoulder), surely constituted more of a 'colour clash' with Everton's royal blue than their standard all-white kit would have done.

If I was the referee for that game I would have gone into the dressing room and said: "Sorry, in my eyes this is too much of a clash - put your proper first kit on".

Frustration, frustration...

There are many things in modern life that serve to frustrate, annoy, and even exasperate.

One that regularly features in people's complaints is 'Call Centres'. In fact, to be more specific, the frustrating electronic bureaucracy one has to battle through whenever trying to sort something out on the phone.

As you might imagine (given that I am writing about it!) I have an example ready to hand.

Today I rang the company (for politeness they shall remain nameless) with which my daughter has a mobile phone contract. Now that she is earning she wants to take over the account.

I duly retrieved the paperwork from my filing cabinet. I then phoned. After what seemed an eternity of navigating through endless "if you want this, dial this" type options (Oh, for the days of a switchboard reply with a human being immediately at the other end!) I finally got to speak to a member of staff.

I confirmed the phone number. I gave my address. He asked for my previous address. Now, the paperwork WHICH I HAD IN FRONT OF ME clearly stated my present address. As a matter of random interest, it actually listed my two previous addresses (I moved twice in a couple of years). This means SOMEONE HAD, AT SOME POINT, TAKEN DOWN MY DETAILS CORRECTLY.

Yet, the unhelpful individual on the other end insisted that the address he had on the system didn't match. I pointed out the information on my paperwork was correct and that, therefore, the problem/fault was his ... or, rather, not his personally, but that of someone 'at his end'.

Banging my head against a brick wall would have seemed rewarding and worthwhile compared with the usefulness of this frustrating, time-consuming conversation. I am not blaming him personally, and I'm sure someone will point out that people like him have to endure the ire of grumpy people like me on the other end. He doesn't deserve that, but that's not the point.

In this case the problem was theirs, not mine - and yet, I now have to sort it out by going down to a local telephone centre and presenting two items of personal identification. I still don't know how easy it will then be to have the account transferred to my daughter. I am dreading more frustration.

We've lost an awful lot in this technological age.

There's nothing on!

"Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without the double-edition Radio Times!" How often have I said that in the past, or had others say it to me?

It has certainly been part of my Christmas traditions, for as long as I can remember, to buy the special Christmas edition as soon as it hits the news-stands. (For those of us who can remember further back, there was a time when you had to buy the Radio Times and the TV Times, as the former only published BBC TV and radio programmes; the latter covered ITV)

So it was, in the usual spirit of Christmas tradition, that I bought this year's edition.

But, I have to say, it was probably the worst investment of £3.20 I made this past festive season.

To borrow from Terry Wogan: "Is it me?" It just seems that Christmas TV isn't what it used to be. Perhaps the growth in quantity (of channels, that is) is directly proportional to the decline in quality. Perhaps the DVD/catch-up-TV-on-the-internet age has just dulled the excitement of a special film or Christmas TV special.

In the past part of the fun of buying the double-edition was glancing through and spotting well in advance the programmes or films you wanted to watch (or to record on VHS if you knew you wouldn't be in to see it). I recall my mum used to circle those things she most wanted to see.

Now each day takes up three double pages: terrestrial TV, then the freeview channels, and then the satellite channels. Even though I have no need for the third section (not having satellite) wading through everything else now becomes a major exercise. In some cases there is precious little detail because of the lack of space.

I'm not a Luddite: I watch DVDs, I watch stuff on the freeview channels (especially the excellent ITV3) and I occasionally watch stuff on the internet.

All the same, I can't help feeling we have lost something of the sparkle of TV at Christmas.

Feet ... you have two of them

In my twenties I was never anything more than an average Sunday league park footballer. I could claim I was obviously missed by the talent scouts ... but people wouldn't take that seriously.

But ... I could kick a football with both of the feet God has given me. Of course I had a 'stronger' foot (my right) with which I took penalties. But if, in a passage of play, it suited to pass with my left foot (or even shoot with it) I was competent to do so.

Professional footballers (and especially those who represent their country) who can only kick the ball with one foot have always irritated me. More importantly, though, I believe they will always be a liability at some point, either from an attacking or defensive point of view.

And yet pundits, sports writers and - crucially - coaches seem to ignore this. In the less forgiving world of an individual sport (like, say, tennis) if a player had an obvious weakness to their game the coaches would work on it to improve it. Does that not happen with football?

Take Leighton Baines, the left-back. I'm sure most pundits and sports writers would generally speak well of him when playing for England as he did last night (in the World Cup qualifier against Poland).

Baines is good when England are moving forward at pace. He is strong and tenacious, and has a more than decent cross on him (witness England's first goal). If he is facing the opponent's corner-flag he is fine.

But if the play slows down and Baines is turned (so that he has his back to the sideline) he immediately becomes a liability to the forward momentum of an attack.

Why? Because every time he gets the ball in a position like that he passes back to one of the central defenders. The reason he does this is because he is only willing to play the ball with his left foot. Even when a diagonal ball infield (to a midfielder or striker) with his right foot would be the better ball. When a diagonal ball infield would keep the passage of play flowing. Watch him the next time he plays.

England are often criticized for their inability to break teams down. One of the reasons for this is we don't move the ball around the pitch quick enough.

And Baines' steadfast refusal to play the ball inside with his right foot is one reason why that doesn't happen (there are others, of course).

Coaches need to do their job properly. They should have him out on the training park and tell him he can only play the ball with his right foot until he is competent to do so. If a Sunday league park footballer can do it so can he.

Tasteless design

Honestly! Where on earth do football kit manufacturers get their designers from these days?

I am torn between concluding that, perhaps, many of them are using six-year-olds who like colouring things in at random; or that they are employing people who are permanently on mind-altering drugs.

Take, as an example, this year's offering from Liverpool of an away kit and a third kit (it's not enough, it seems, these days to have one 'away' kit; you have to exploit the punters' wallets by coming out with two). The 'first' away kit looks like a white shirt that someone has spilt oil on ... and then cut themselves. The so-called 'third' kit (left) looks like a child has drawn shapes on a piece of paper and coloured them in with whatever shade of pencil they could get their hands on. The tops of the socks don't even match. I am not the first to describe the whole thing as hideous.

If I were the manager of a football team I would have it written into my contract that I would have the final say on what kit my players were actually going to wear when representing the club.

And if anyone came up with tasteless disasters like this I would tell them to go back to the drawing board and come up with something simpler.

How on earth are we winning?

Is it just me?

Is anyone else beginning to wonder how on earth England are 2-0 ahead in the current Ashes series?

Our batting, particularly from the top four, has been nothing short of woeful. As I write, we are 56-3 in the second innings of the fourth test. That's eight innings out of eight in which we have made a poor start.

I guess our success in the first two tests can be put down to a combination of good bowling and poor batting on the part of the Aussies. In the second test, for example, we were 20-odd for 3 in the first innings and 30-odd for three in the second ... and yet still went on to win the match by a huge margin.

We rode our luck in the third test, when the rain interruptions helped us secure the draw that guaranteed the retention of the Ashes (as holders we only need to draw the five-test series). We will have to so some to avoid defeat in the current test.

Whatever the outcome of this game, it's time to change things. Ian Bell has batted well at five, and our tail as 'wagged a bit' with the bat: It's the top four who have let us down. They are the guys who are meant to build an innings. It's a blessing to have someone like Broad, who can come in at eight or nine and regularly score 20-30 runs. However, it would be nice if he came in with 400 on the board - not 200. England have yet to make 400 in this series: another statistic that seems remarkable, given our 2-0 lead.

Root and Trott are at the heart of the problem, although even captain Alaistair Cook has been below his best. We need a fresh approach for the final test.

Nurturing (home) talent

The decision not to renew the contract of England Under-21 coach Stuart Pearce provoked some considerable discussion recently.

On the one hand, the team's disappointing performances at the last two tournaments meant the decision was not altogether surprising. At the same time, there was a sense that merely replacing the coach does not really address the underlying problem: the lack of young English talent coming through in football ... and the lack of experience being gained by whatever talent is around.

Both aspects of this problem can be attributed, in large, to the huge influx of foreign players in the English domestic game over the past decade.

This is, in itself, an interesting issue to ponder. It could be argued that overseas players bring great benefit to the domestic game, in that they raise standards and enable people to compete against the best from around the world.

However, this will only be true if the environment in which this happens enables domestic talent to develop and gain experience. If young domestic players are squeezed out of the picture altogether these benefits will be largely lost.

At this point I would want to make a comparison between the English Premier League (football) and the Indian Premier League (20/20 cricket).

Both are considered "strong products" (a purely commercial perspective, but one that is relevant, nonetheless); both attract huge amounts of money, in sponsorship and TV deals; both attract the interest of businesses and wealthy individuals who want to be involved commercially as owners or part-owners of teams; and both attract the best of overseas players from around the world.

And here is the crucial difference:

The Indian Premier League has rules about the make-up of teams and squads. As far as I understand it, squads have to contain a minimum of 16 players (presumably to ensure viability) but, crucially, no more than 11 can be overseas players, and a minimum of 14 have to be Indian players, with a further requirement of a minimum of 6 from the current Indian under-22 pool.

In addition, the team picked for each game can contain no more than four overseas players.

What these rules do is to ensure that, while the rich influx of overseas players raises the standards of games from a spectator point of view, it does so in a way that nurtures domestic talent.

The English Premier League has no such rules, as far as I am aware. Perhaps it is time for the FA to look into doing so. Let them learn from the Indian cricket model.

Messing about with the story

For some time now I have, periodically, been reading Agatha Christie's 'Poirot' and 'Miss Marple' books.

Recently I read - and enjoyed - "A Murder is Announced". It prompted me to revisit the excellent BBC TV series from the 1980s, which starred Joan Hickson in the title role of Miss Marple.

In the last few years ITV has been doing a number of 'remakes' (initially starring Geraldine McEwan and, latterly, Julia McKenzie). These modern versions have come in for criticism for messing about with the storylines and characters.

I looked up "A Murder is Announced" on Wikipedia. Of the adaptation starring Joan Hickson, it says:

Only a few changes were made: Mitzi was remamed Hannah and is said to be Swiss (in the book, her nationality is unknown) and in the novel the vicarage cat was male and called Tiglath Pileser. In the film the cat was female and called Delilah.

A name-change for the cook and the Vicarage cat! However, of the more recent version it says:

The Harmons are deleted, so Miss Marple stays with Miss Murgatroyd, the daughter of an old friend in this version. Mrs. Easterbrook is also deleted, and the Colonel is a divorced alcoholic who was thrown out of the army for drunkenness. Mrs. Swettenham is a single mother and is attempting to convince Colonel Easterbrook to marry her; her son, Edmund, greatly resents this (Edmund's romance with Philippa is also deleted.) Hinch and Murgatroyd are both younger women than in the novel, and are in an overtly romantic relationship. Mitzi is said to be Polish. Patrick and "Julia" (Emma) are more intimately involved with one another than in either the book or previous adaptations and Inspector Craddock is a gruff, impatient man who is much more aggressive in his attitude and technique of investigation than in the novel.

The film is made more emotional: Dora Bunner's character is different: not quite as muddleheaded and very adorable. When Miss Marple and Hinchcliffe find Murgatroyd's body, Hinch and Miss Marple burst into tears and some emotional music is played. When Miss Marple reveals Miss Blacklock as the killer and moves on to Bunny and Amy's murders: Bunny's delicous death (Charlotte's attempts to make Bunny's last day happy) is seen in a more kind and gentle way, and Miss Marple nearly bursts into tears again. Mitzi tries to kill Miss Blacklock and Miss Blacklock does not try to kill Mitzi. When Miss Blacklock is exposed as the killer, Dora's ghost comes into the room (unseen by anyone apart from Miss Marple and Miss Blacklock) impersonating the murderer's regrets for the only person she truly cared about.

That says it all, really.

Same old ...

Watching the England football team is an activity that really should come with a government health warning.

Over the years the sorrows, the frustrations, the anger, the tension-induced migraines ... and that's just on the good days! What was it Baddiel and Skinner sang: "Thirty years of hurt, never stopped me dreaming...". That was back in 1996. Make that 47 - and counting.

Last  night I sat through another hugely disappointing (more polite than a word like 'woeful') England performance, as they attempted to beat the might of Montenegro in a World Cup qualifier.

Montenegro is a country with a population of less than 700,000. Admittedly, it was once part of Yugoslavia and, even more recently, part of Serbia, so it does have something of a footballing heritage. But even so.

England started brightly and were a goal up inside ten minutes. But as the game unfolded it revealed once again our total inability to take control, or even to maintain the control we have established in a game. By the end we were somewhat fortunate to hang on for a draw - which was also the case in an earlier qualifier in Poland.

Personally, I think Roy Hodgson played the wrong formation. It was a kind of 4-3-2-1 (once christened "the Christmas tree"), with Gerrard, Carrick and Cleverly in front of the back four, and with Welbeck and Milner further forward and wide, leaving Rooney alone up front.

It was wrong because if Rooney is played as a lone striker he needs someone coming through from the centre of midfield to support him. Carrick will never do that in a million years. He is one-paced and seems to think that a football field consists of the centre-circle.

It was wrong because it left Milner nothing to do. He lacks the pace ever to frighten defenders. But at least when England play a kind of 4-2-3-1 (with two deep-lying midfielders tucked in and Milner as part of the '3' in front of them) he can justify his existence by dropping back and supporting the full-back in wide positions.

It was wrong because both Cleverley and Welbeck lack positional sense. Oh, and talent.

It's true that England were missing a few players because of injury, but that's something you have to put up with in football.

Maybe the influx of overseas players and the pursuit of short-term financial rewards has suffocated the domestic game. I don't know. Some will say, England just aren't good enough, but something inside of me says, We should be. At least good enough to compete at the top level of the game - even if we didn't actually win anything.

Oh well. At least we have a break now. The World Cup qualifiers don't resume until the start of next season. Perhaps by then some emerging new talent will ... have emerged. We can but continue to dream. And stock up on the Migraleve.

Sentences are complicated things!

Why would you want, er, why would you want a TV presenter who can't speak in sentences? Why have someone who, er, why have someone who can't speak without repeating the first part of every sentence?

If you know who, er, if you know who I'm referring to, please, um, please post a comment. Does he, er, does his spoil your enjoyment of football on TV?

All change?

Right. Tottenham Hotspur, as all football fans will know, play in white. Inter Milan, the famous Italian club, play in dark blue and black stripes.

In their recent European tie, played at Tottenham's White Hart Lane football ground, Inter Milan played in an all-red strip.

Why?

In days gone by football teams had 'second-strips', or 'change-strips', to be used in the event of a 'colour clash'; that is, when two sides played in the same colours, or sufficiently similar colours to cause confusion.

The general principle was that, on such occasions, the away-team would wear their alternate colours. This principle gradually led to the term 'away-strip' replacing 'second-strip' or 'change-strip' as the more common reference ... but the principle behind the usage, surely, remained the same.

So why the Inter Milan colour change? I suspect this is another example of commercialism and money-men dictating terms in football. Somewhere along the line some sponsor has demanded that Inter Milan wear their new change strip on a regular enough basis to encourage more gullible people to dig deep into their pockets and fork out the not-inexpensive sum required to buy a replica shirt or kit, either for themselves or for their children.

A flutter on the phone

Legalized gambling. I guess it one of the inevitable consequences of living not only in a democracy, but in a society that is increasingly liberal and secular in its outlook.

'Freedom', 'choice' and other such concepts are the shibboleths that trump all other considerations in such a culture.

People have been able to bet in this country for many years, of course. But what prompted me to write was the recent heavy TV-advertising for betting via your mobile phone.

No longer do you have to go down to the local bookmakers and hand over money; no longer do you even have to switch on your computer and gamble online. Now you can do it from the comfort of your armchair with just a few clicks on your mobile phone.

Now presumably there are processes for sanctioning or licensing things like this. At some point someone must have been in a position to say 'yeah' or 'nay' to this idea.

Did they not think about the consequences? Gambling is addictive and can ruin lives and families. Even if you consider, in a free society, that people should have the freedom to take part in it, should someone not have stopped and thought about where the all-too easy access to gambling via a mobile phone could lead?

A load of ballboys

The latest football incident to get the British media all excited concerns Chelsea footaballer Eden Hazard supposedly kicking a ballboy.

Hazard (pronounced 'Azarr', if you are concerned with the French pronunciation) was trying to get the ball back in Chelsea's League Cup match with Swansea. In doing so it seems he kicked a Swansea ball-boy, an act which saw him sent off. Now everyone is waiting to see what disciplinary action will be taken against him. The 'standard' for getting sent off is a three-match ban. A spokesman for the FA today said in this instance that was "clearly insufficient".

Rubbish.

If you ignore all the hype, what actually happened? Watch the video footage carefully and impartially.

First, in what was a tense cup match, the Swansea ball-boy flagrantly sought to waste time, falling on the ball and laying on top of it.

Second, Hazard, in wanting to get on with the game, attempted to kick the ball out from underneath him. He clearly did not aim at or intend to kick the boy.

Third, the boy writhed around as if in considerable pain. In reality, he was wearing a thick, padded coat (understandably, as it was a cold evening): If Hazard did make some sort of contact it would have been slight and I suspect the boy hardly felt it.

Fourth, not content with feigning some serious injury he gesticulated towards the referee (in fairness, where did he learn this sort of behaviour? From watching footballers who do it all the time). His acting was 'successful': Hazard was promptly sent off.

I'm not condoning Hazard's over-zealous actions - but one can understand his frustration. A booking at the time would probably have been more appropriate. The reaction has been ridiculous.

Shopping in the 21st Century

It's not been a good week for the British High Street. First Jessops, then HMV, and then Blockbusters ... all closing down.

Over the years retailers come and go, of course, and businesses are particularly prone to going under when the nation is going through the kind of economical dip we seem to be in at the moment.

However, one wonders if the demise of these three chains is not also a sign of a bigger, longer-term phenomenon.

All of them, in one way or another, have arguably fallen not just because of the current recession, but because of changes in the way we shop.

The question is: Where is this all heading? Will High Streets, as we know them, become a thing of the past at some point? Will Amazon take over the world? And, moreover, do we care and, if so, is there anything we can do about it? Principles, and the desire to see local shops continuing to stay open, quickly give way to pragmatism where prices are concerned.

As I read of the expected closure of the Blockbusters chain it got me thinking about Britain's industrial revolution. That was a time of massive economical and, more significantly, cultural change. How did people cope back then? Perhaps I ought to look for a decent history book on that period for some answers.

Christmas?

"I love Christmas!" ... "I hate Christmas..."

Two different people talking? No? One person with a bit of a split-personality problem? No? Someone who delights in making contradictory statements, then? No? How can both be true?

If you are a kindred spirit you will know all too well. Let me give just two or three examples of how both statements can easily be true.

1. You love Christmas, but the events of life have left some bitter memories and/or regrets at this time of the year.

2. You love Christmas, but you are a perfectionist, or are overly-sentimental (or both!), with the result that Christmas always fails to live up to your expectations.

3. You love Christmas, but you are a committed Christian who 'wrestles' with maintaining an appropriate balance between enjoying the 'worldly' and remembering the 'spiritual'.

Of course, if more than one of the above applies to you, you will certainly know what I mean.

Christmas TV

It's the first week of December and, in the gaps between programmes, the main TV channels are beginning to give us those initial tantalizing glimpses of what is going to be on offer over the festive season.

It will be another week, or so, I guess, before we begin to learn in more detail about the schedules for this Christmas, but those first tasters reminded me of something that rather irritates me at Christmas time: for the want of a better phrase, I'll call it 'Christmas after Christmas'.

In a nutshell, what I mean is Christmas films and specials that focus on some aspect of Christmas (Christmas Eve, Santa, etc) ... which are then scheduled by whoever is responsible for these things on one of the days after Christmas!

To give one example, the family/children's film "Elf", a light-hearted, somewhat sentimental piece of Christmas fantasy, that reaches its climax in Santa's annual Christmas Eve activities. Last year, I think it was, it was scheduled for Boxing Day (or possibly even the day after that). But Santa is 'old hat' on December 26th! There are enough non-Christmas-specific films around that can be scheduled in that lazy holiday period between Christmas and New Year. (At the time of writing I have just seen a preview for "Elf" indicating it is being shown this year on December 9th - for which I'm glad).

Please, programme-schedulers: put anything Christmas-related on in the days leading up to Christmas!