I was quite enjoying following the Labour party Leadership contest.
The sibling rivalry, familial and of the old Brown & Blair camps... Ed Balls and David Milliband provided the hypocrisy that is necessary in any political campaign today: Both have told us we were wrong to go to war despite supporting it whole-heartedly at the time...both told us they towed the line because it was important to line up behind President Blair... and then both, in the first breath they uttered to tell us why they should be the next labout leader, told us they were their own men and stood firmly behind their principles. Hypocrisy is hopefully high on both of their lists of principles!
Ed Milliband, in a bid to distance himself from the Blairite new Labour crowd, tried to take the moral high ground by claiming he played no part in going to war as he was not an MP then. Unfortunately he forgot to mention that he was a key advisor to Gordon Brown during those years and no doubt lent his opinion on the subject of Defence funding, if not in going to war!
Then their was Andy Burnham, who did a great job of proving to us all that he had neither the personality nor the presence, or gravitas, to win the campaign... anybody's lap dog, that's Andy Burnham!
And finally, there as Diane Abbott. My choice... if I was a Labour supporter... which I'm not... but still... Diane did have the moral high ground as she voted against the war and was generally never afraid to share her thoughts on New Labour and it's Leader... that man who ended up a multi-millionaire whilst doing a job that pays £164,000 p.a. You can't help wondering what the Labour Party would be like under Miss Abbott... but we'll quite probably never know.
So Ed won. We were all shocked... and confused... and we listened to all the polite speeches, and watched at the Labour conference where we heard them all rushing to line up behind the new leader in a united Labour... united except for David Milliband, who had decided not to server his brother as he had the support of most of the Labour Parliamentary party so didn't want them playing with his ball...
Is Labour united... can Ed hold the confidence of the Parliamentary party, and does he support the Unions? I'd say no on both counts. Time will tell as Mr Miller Band gets his feet under the desk... but I don't care. To be blunt I don't give a hoot! I've had so much of Bert and Ernie in the past few weeks that I don't care if I never see, or hear from them again.
It could be any party in power... all the Leaders look and sound the same... the collection is complete and Britain has become the first country to have a 3 party 1 party system. Yes, 3 parties fighting for the sacred 'middle-ground'. Ironically that used to be the Liberals' turf, but they are now the least likely to win it.
"Some people call me the space cowboy" - quite possibly, Ed.
"Some call me the gangster of love" - I doubt that, Ed.
"Some people call me Maurice, as I speak with the pompetous of Love" - No! You lost me there Ed. You could be A joker tho'... jut not the one I want to hear about from now on...
Monday, 4 October 2010
Monday, 18 May 2009
MP expenses - what a farce!
I've just heard on the radio that the MPs who have proposed a motion of no confidence in the speaker of the house have stated that they don't trust him to do enough to reform the expenses system.
It is this "it's not our fault...we are victims of the system" rubbish that really urks me and makes me wonder how we can make the MPs themselves accountable for this disgraceful exploitation. I don't trust you to do enough to change the system you've exploited! Do they know how hypocritical this makes them look? They're not fooling anyone...
The MPs knew the system was there to be exploited and they exploited it unashamedly. Alan Duncan was on Have I Got News For You sometime in the past (clip shown again on Friday 15th May 2009) smirking about the system...
"Great system, isn't it?" he responded, grinning smugly as Ian Hislop asked him if he felt there was nothing wrong with him claiming for a 2nd home when he already owned 3. He was laughing in the face of the population and nothing gets done about it. These are intelligent people and, regardless of whether or not it was acting within the system, it was most definitely not acting in the spirit of the guidelines set out in the Green book. They talk about the MP being sure that the claims they make are necessary for the execution of their post (Moat cleaning, dog food, £400/month on food!) and are beyond reproach. I can't help feeling that, Alan Duncan definitely, and every MP who made from this system knew they were exploiting it for their own gains.
Does Hazel Blears seriously expect us to believe that switching her home designation just before she sold one property, thus avoiding Capital Gains Tax, was an actual fact (ie, did her family up and re-locate prior to this move it was it just a change on paper?)? The system may have allowed for it, but they all knew what they were gaining from it.
I have a solution to all, but the House as a whole probably wouldn't go for it. It involves the way we elect our Government and how they are held to account to their employers...us!! To really implement change from the centre out it is necessary to elect a class of politician that is not tainted by the old system (not that all MPs are by any stretch) or by the old boy network traditions. That requires a new party to stand nationwide. A party of the people. A loud democratic voice that will implement the necessary change and then step back and put the change into practice and create a new history for our future.
It is this "it's not our fault...we are victims of the system" rubbish that really urks me and makes me wonder how we can make the MPs themselves accountable for this disgraceful exploitation. I don't trust you to do enough to change the system you've exploited! Do they know how hypocritical this makes them look? They're not fooling anyone...
The MPs knew the system was there to be exploited and they exploited it unashamedly. Alan Duncan was on Have I Got News For You sometime in the past (clip shown again on Friday 15th May 2009) smirking about the system...
"Great system, isn't it?" he responded, grinning smugly as Ian Hislop asked him if he felt there was nothing wrong with him claiming for a 2nd home when he already owned 3. He was laughing in the face of the population and nothing gets done about it. These are intelligent people and, regardless of whether or not it was acting within the system, it was most definitely not acting in the spirit of the guidelines set out in the Green book. They talk about the MP being sure that the claims they make are necessary for the execution of their post (Moat cleaning, dog food, £400/month on food!) and are beyond reproach. I can't help feeling that, Alan Duncan definitely, and every MP who made from this system knew they were exploiting it for their own gains.
Does Hazel Blears seriously expect us to believe that switching her home designation just before she sold one property, thus avoiding Capital Gains Tax, was an actual fact (ie, did her family up and re-locate prior to this move it was it just a change on paper?)? The system may have allowed for it, but they all knew what they were gaining from it.
I have a solution to all, but the House as a whole probably wouldn't go for it. It involves the way we elect our Government and how they are held to account to their employers...us!! To really implement change from the centre out it is necessary to elect a class of politician that is not tainted by the old system (not that all MPs are by any stretch) or by the old boy network traditions. That requires a new party to stand nationwide. A party of the people. A loud democratic voice that will implement the necessary change and then step back and put the change into practice and create a new history for our future.
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Don't Blame the Ref!
I'm sick and tired of hearing Tottenham fans complain about Howard Webb's decision against Manchester Utd last week. Referees are human and will make mistakes as much as anyone.
Footballers are also human and also, by definition, prone to mistakes... but it's the referee's mistakes which are highlighted, scrutinised and ultimately dragged under a microscope with the official being villified for his errors.
What about the footballers? Their mistakes cost games and trophies and huge amounts in prize money. Yes, we highlight and chastise them for their mistakes, but we do not conduct the same sort of witch hunt that we do when it comes to the referee, week in-week out!
Jermaine Jenas said that it was "another example of a referee crumbling at Old Trafford." Jermaine...mate. Listen... it was 1 goal! Only one goal. you still had a goal lead on them. To then lose another four in such style, is another example of a team crumbling at Old Trafford! Another example of Tottenham crumbling with a solid first half lead against Manchester United. As a Premiership football team that is shocking enough in itself. But to then blame the whole debacle of a collapse on Mr Webb's decision is just sticking your head in the sand.
Who is being blamed for goals 2 to 5? Who is being dragged over the hot coals at White Hart Lane? And if it's no one, it should be the whole bloody team! To let yourselves curl up into a ball after 1 goal, when you had a lead still, and then run crying that the referee wasn't fair is just relinquishing any responsibility for your own actions. If that's how you play at White Hart Lane, it's no surprise you've had the season you've had.
Stand up Tottenham, be men... and when someone scores a dubious goal against you, accept it, get on with it and fight back!!
Footballers are also human and also, by definition, prone to mistakes... but it's the referee's mistakes which are highlighted, scrutinised and ultimately dragged under a microscope with the official being villified for his errors.
What about the footballers? Their mistakes cost games and trophies and huge amounts in prize money. Yes, we highlight and chastise them for their mistakes, but we do not conduct the same sort of witch hunt that we do when it comes to the referee, week in-week out!
Jermaine Jenas said that it was "another example of a referee crumbling at Old Trafford." Jermaine...mate. Listen... it was 1 goal! Only one goal. you still had a goal lead on them. To then lose another four in such style, is another example of a team crumbling at Old Trafford! Another example of Tottenham crumbling with a solid first half lead against Manchester United. As a Premiership football team that is shocking enough in itself. But to then blame the whole debacle of a collapse on Mr Webb's decision is just sticking your head in the sand.
Who is being blamed for goals 2 to 5? Who is being dragged over the hot coals at White Hart Lane? And if it's no one, it should be the whole bloody team! To let yourselves curl up into a ball after 1 goal, when you had a lead still, and then run crying that the referee wasn't fair is just relinquishing any responsibility for your own actions. If that's how you play at White Hart Lane, it's no surprise you've had the season you've had.
Stand up Tottenham, be men... and when someone scores a dubious goal against you, accept it, get on with it and fight back!!
Saturday, 28 February 2009
it's not easy being green
I'm no climate change expert and I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon here. I'm just one of those people (most of us) that can't make head nor tail of the variety of viewpoints and mountains of statistics. I'm not sure whether I'm coming or going with the ever-changing, ambiguous demands on my 'green' responsibilities. So this Blog covers a lot of points... all of which are relevant to me in my 3 bed semi in the home counties.
How much do you work to reduce your carbon footprint? Don't tell me, answer the question for yourself...truthfully. Except for a relative few of us who are living in green houses in the forests of Alaska or somewhere, I can't help feeling that the rest of us are just chasing our tails.
I'm not the most green person you'll ever find. I appreciate that climate change is happening, but I'm just not convinced that it's man-made. The seas once covered far more land than they do today, and it quite possibly will again. That's just the cyclical nature of the universe. The ice-caps melted about 10,000 years ago... they probably lost about 80% of the ice in the great melt that we call the end of the ice age. A dramatically, and at least equally, cataclysmic event to that we face today (the ice caps once came down as far as Finchley Road tube station). Not man made, and the earth survived to flourish. So do I feel that we should be trying to be green? I think it's a very noble cause and I am a great believer that we are tenants on this beautiful planet and, like all life forms, probably transient and not necessary to the long-term scheme in the bigger, cosmic picture. If we don't look after the planet, Mother Earth won't hesitate to evict us and clean up the mess herself. Saving the planet isn't about saving the planet; it's about saving ourselves... I think planet is more than capable of saving itself.
My issue is the way we are being green. we're recycling and yet the supermarkets are full of unrecyclable packaging (5 layers on 1 easter egg!!) so are we making any kind of a dent in that area. we are turning our thermostats down a degree, and insulating our lofts and so on, whilst we are at the same time buying Sky multi-room or running PCs, TVs, PS3s, washing machines, dishwashers, air conditioning units, cars (multiple per household) and so on and on. it seems our consumption individually is going up... so are we really off-setting anything? Are we even reducing any levels of output? (and if you've got evidence for me here I'm happy to listen...just make it easy to understand, please?) We want to be green, as long as it doesn't impact our lifestyle too much.. I need the car! I deserve an exotic holiday I've worked for it! I don't recall any companies banning travel to meetings to reduce their carbon footbprints, but I know of a few who did just that and turned their whole organisations to web conferencing as soon as the recession hit! They did it not to save the planet, but to save costs! And the government would have us believe that they can off-set the impact of a new runway and a new terminal at Heathrow airport (possibly in previously mentioned forests of Alaska...but not over Hayes or Ashford or West Drayton or any one of the other towns about to be brought under the umbrella of the new air routes/take off and landing paths (or whatever they call them)...
I suspect that our varying degrees of commitment to the green cause are directly related to the levels of guilt we personally feel for the planet (or the arrogant ignorance of the belief that we can actually really make a difference against the gigantic forces that make our climate system) or how much we believe anything we're told by any alleged authority.
The Governmental scaremongering around climate change and saving the planet also provides quickly justifiable taxes on our rubbish. There are a number of holes in this one:
First, the people who will be hit hardest will be the ones who can barely afford it already. Families with children. And the more children you have, the more your household expenses and the more your rubbish tax!
Second, we are being penalised and taxed for something outside of our own individual control. we don't ask for 5 layers of plastic around an easter egg and its contents, but we have to throw it out!
Why don't the supermarkets provide big bins for the disposal of their own packaging? And they can get the food processors, packagers and distributors to pay towards them.
Of course there is something WE could do...but it goes back to changing our habits and lifestyles. Food never came with all this packaging in the past. As life got faster and more demanding, we needed fast, processed, frozen and storable food. Once upon a time we went to buy fresh vegetables on a daily basis and we got seasonal vegetables - the only ones that grew at that time of year. Now we can have vegetables nicely stored and packed to make them last longer. We could change our lifestyles but I suspect it's a move too far out of our comfort zones for all but a very rare, time-rich, few of us.
Should we be green? Yes...we shold show Mother Earth all the respect she commands.
Are we doing enough? I say yes on our own individual scale (for those of us that have some green or social conscience). Are we reducing carbon outputs? Not on your life!
Is there any way out? Potentially...but you won't like it. Fossil fuels are disappearing and there will be a shortage in the next 30 years or so... shortages that will make the 70's power cuts look like a walk in the park at noon at summer solstace. There simply won't be enough energy to go around. I doubt renewable energy sources will be able to fulfill all energy needs if we continue our usage patterns, and procreation patterns at that, along ouf current trends.
1 child per household
1 TV per household
1 radio/music system per household
1 car per household
PCs at home only - none allowed in the office (encourage a home-working culture and reduce commuting)
Choice of Playstation/X-Box/Nintendo/Wii/ or other - 1 per household
Heating provided to each household at agreed times only (times agreed one an individual household basis)
Lighting at pre-agreed times.
Would anyone actually agree to all this? Probably not. But as long as we are all living like this, accept that our place on this planet, like the dinosaurs and so many other now extinct species, is temporary and but a phase in the bigger cosmic/universal evolution that we enable. We are a cog; we are not the machine!
How much do you work to reduce your carbon footprint? Don't tell me, answer the question for yourself...truthfully. Except for a relative few of us who are living in green houses in the forests of Alaska or somewhere, I can't help feeling that the rest of us are just chasing our tails.
I'm not the most green person you'll ever find. I appreciate that climate change is happening, but I'm just not convinced that it's man-made. The seas once covered far more land than they do today, and it quite possibly will again. That's just the cyclical nature of the universe. The ice-caps melted about 10,000 years ago... they probably lost about 80% of the ice in the great melt that we call the end of the ice age. A dramatically, and at least equally, cataclysmic event to that we face today (the ice caps once came down as far as Finchley Road tube station). Not man made, and the earth survived to flourish. So do I feel that we should be trying to be green? I think it's a very noble cause and I am a great believer that we are tenants on this beautiful planet and, like all life forms, probably transient and not necessary to the long-term scheme in the bigger, cosmic picture. If we don't look after the planet, Mother Earth won't hesitate to evict us and clean up the mess herself. Saving the planet isn't about saving the planet; it's about saving ourselves... I think planet is more than capable of saving itself.
My issue is the way we are being green. we're recycling and yet the supermarkets are full of unrecyclable packaging (5 layers on 1 easter egg!!) so are we making any kind of a dent in that area. we are turning our thermostats down a degree, and insulating our lofts and so on, whilst we are at the same time buying Sky multi-room or running PCs, TVs, PS3s, washing machines, dishwashers, air conditioning units, cars (multiple per household) and so on and on. it seems our consumption individually is going up... so are we really off-setting anything? Are we even reducing any levels of output? (and if you've got evidence for me here I'm happy to listen...just make it easy to understand, please?) We want to be green, as long as it doesn't impact our lifestyle too much.. I need the car! I deserve an exotic holiday I've worked for it! I don't recall any companies banning travel to meetings to reduce their carbon footbprints, but I know of a few who did just that and turned their whole organisations to web conferencing as soon as the recession hit! They did it not to save the planet, but to save costs! And the government would have us believe that they can off-set the impact of a new runway and a new terminal at Heathrow airport (possibly in previously mentioned forests of Alaska...but not over Hayes or Ashford or West Drayton or any one of the other towns about to be brought under the umbrella of the new air routes/take off and landing paths (or whatever they call them)...
I suspect that our varying degrees of commitment to the green cause are directly related to the levels of guilt we personally feel for the planet (or the arrogant ignorance of the belief that we can actually really make a difference against the gigantic forces that make our climate system) or how much we believe anything we're told by any alleged authority.
The Governmental scaremongering around climate change and saving the planet also provides quickly justifiable taxes on our rubbish. There are a number of holes in this one:
First, the people who will be hit hardest will be the ones who can barely afford it already. Families with children. And the more children you have, the more your household expenses and the more your rubbish tax!
Second, we are being penalised and taxed for something outside of our own individual control. we don't ask for 5 layers of plastic around an easter egg and its contents, but we have to throw it out!
Why don't the supermarkets provide big bins for the disposal of their own packaging? And they can get the food processors, packagers and distributors to pay towards them.
Of course there is something WE could do...but it goes back to changing our habits and lifestyles. Food never came with all this packaging in the past. As life got faster and more demanding, we needed fast, processed, frozen and storable food. Once upon a time we went to buy fresh vegetables on a daily basis and we got seasonal vegetables - the only ones that grew at that time of year. Now we can have vegetables nicely stored and packed to make them last longer. We could change our lifestyles but I suspect it's a move too far out of our comfort zones for all but a very rare, time-rich, few of us.
Should we be green? Yes...we shold show Mother Earth all the respect she commands.
Are we doing enough? I say yes on our own individual scale (for those of us that have some green or social conscience). Are we reducing carbon outputs? Not on your life!
Is there any way out? Potentially...but you won't like it. Fossil fuels are disappearing and there will be a shortage in the next 30 years or so... shortages that will make the 70's power cuts look like a walk in the park at noon at summer solstace. There simply won't be enough energy to go around. I doubt renewable energy sources will be able to fulfill all energy needs if we continue our usage patterns, and procreation patterns at that, along ouf current trends.
1 child per household
1 TV per household
1 radio/music system per household
1 car per household
PCs at home only - none allowed in the office (encourage a home-working culture and reduce commuting)
Choice of Playstation/X-Box/Nintendo/Wii/ or other - 1 per household
Heating provided to each household at agreed times only (times agreed one an individual household basis)
Lighting at pre-agreed times.
Would anyone actually agree to all this? Probably not. But as long as we are all living like this, accept that our place on this planet, like the dinosaurs and so many other now extinct species, is temporary and but a phase in the bigger cosmic/universal evolution that we enable. We are a cog; we are not the machine!
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Facebook's latest privacy embarrasment
It's not the first time that Facebook have made a mess of privacy. It's something you'd think that CEO Mark Zuckerberg would be really hot on, bearing in mind the amount of data his site holds and manages. But instead of being over-cautious and ensuring that Facebook is seen as the guardian of our personal security (as far as any site that works to the extent that Facebook does, can...) Facebook's track record could be better...
Newsfeeds..minifeeds...horsefeeds...whatever they were called...and Beacon. A marketers dream, if you get the execution right...or a PR and trust disaster if you don't. And I mean disaster... The internet is established enough now for the big online brands to face the same attacks the big offline brands suffered when we started being mobilised in virtual lobbyists. let's face it,big brands are big brands, wherever they do business...especially in uncertain and volatile economic and social climates, like that we face now. They make for easy targets. And the public (you and me) doesn't fall for cheap, shallow apologies easily... Facebook's have been among the cheapest "We really messed this one up!" was one of their previous statements for the Beacon.
With today's announcement that Facebook owns everything you post, for ever... and can do anything it wants with it, there is one issue that makes this unfeasible for Mr Zuckerberg, or at least would probably create inconsistencies in the way the right was applied (if at all). What of the hundreds or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of Brands who have posted to and created groups on Facebook. Are those sharings the property of Facebook to do what it wants with? Are the Brand assets also Facebook's to use as they deem fit? Regardless of whether or not they are likely to use it for anything inappropriate, if at all (as Mr Zuckerberg reportedly claimed in one news program) do they have the right to make this decision... do they have the right to determine when it is or isn't fit or appropriate? But CAN they make that decision when it comes to usage of brand assets and trademarks? Would any Brand really run that risk with their identity... we know how paranoid we're all getting about our identities. I know who I am now, but who knows what will happen? And if they set separate rules for the Brands, can they expect to be able to stillo do what they want for our 'brand assets?' They are in essence, our identity and therefore should be afforded the same security.
So what exactly are the new Ts & Cs (in case you've just popped in from Saturn). They say...
"...an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or ... (ii) enable a user to Post."
Now that seems pretty comprehensive to me. So why'd you do it Mr Zuckerberg? Apparently "...Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with. When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they've asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn't help people share that information."
I've tried to listen to him... and I've tried to understand the Facebook perspective, but no matter how much I try I can't see Facebook as anything other than a platform to enables sharing and I don't see a need to pass on a license for Facebook to let my friends see them. You're not sharing your pictures with us Mark...we're sharing them with each other... it's all within our control and our choice...and our pictures... I'm sure there's a word for sharing something that's not yours... a negative word, I mean.
When you lose trust, you need to act fast to regain it...or at least limit the damage. One small slip can be all that's needed...and we don't forget quickly. But when you misuse a Brand's brand... hell hath no fury...
Facebook have to find a revenue model that can sustain it for the long-term, and until it does it needs to embrace its users rather than alienate them... unless this move is a step in the latest attempt to hit on such a model.
Newsfeeds..minifeeds...horsefeeds...whatever they were called...and Beacon. A marketers dream, if you get the execution right...or a PR and trust disaster if you don't. And I mean disaster... The internet is established enough now for the big online brands to face the same attacks the big offline brands suffered when we started being mobilised in virtual lobbyists. let's face it,big brands are big brands, wherever they do business...especially in uncertain and volatile economic and social climates, like that we face now. They make for easy targets. And the public (you and me) doesn't fall for cheap, shallow apologies easily... Facebook's have been among the cheapest "We really messed this one up!" was one of their previous statements for the Beacon.
With today's announcement that Facebook owns everything you post, for ever... and can do anything it wants with it, there is one issue that makes this unfeasible for Mr Zuckerberg, or at least would probably create inconsistencies in the way the right was applied (if at all). What of the hundreds or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of Brands who have posted to and created groups on Facebook. Are those sharings the property of Facebook to do what it wants with? Are the Brand assets also Facebook's to use as they deem fit? Regardless of whether or not they are likely to use it for anything inappropriate, if at all (as Mr Zuckerberg reportedly claimed in one news program) do they have the right to make this decision... do they have the right to determine when it is or isn't fit or appropriate? But CAN they make that decision when it comes to usage of brand assets and trademarks? Would any Brand really run that risk with their identity... we know how paranoid we're all getting about our identities. I know who I am now, but who knows what will happen? And if they set separate rules for the Brands, can they expect to be able to stillo do what they want for our 'brand assets?' They are in essence, our identity and therefore should be afforded the same security.
So what exactly are the new Ts & Cs (in case you've just popped in from Saturn). They say...
"...an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or ... (ii) enable a user to Post."
Now that seems pretty comprehensive to me. So why'd you do it Mr Zuckerberg? Apparently "...Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with. When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they've asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn't help people share that information."
I've tried to listen to him... and I've tried to understand the Facebook perspective, but no matter how much I try I can't see Facebook as anything other than a platform to enables sharing and I don't see a need to pass on a license for Facebook to let my friends see them. You're not sharing your pictures with us Mark...we're sharing them with each other... it's all within our control and our choice...and our pictures... I'm sure there's a word for sharing something that's not yours... a negative word, I mean.
When you lose trust, you need to act fast to regain it...or at least limit the damage. One small slip can be all that's needed...and we don't forget quickly. But when you misuse a Brand's brand... hell hath no fury...
Facebook have to find a revenue model that can sustain it for the long-term, and until it does it needs to embrace its users rather than alienate them... unless this move is a step in the latest attempt to hit on such a model.
Thursday, 18 December 2008
Football rules
They've brought in so many rules in football over the years, all with the objective of making it a more exciting game. Quite frankly they should've just left them alone, all except fot the passing back to the keeper rule. That has made the game better.
What confuses me most is the use of the Yellow card. I thought the yellow card was meant to act as a deterrent. It seems not. The yellow card is an accepted part of the game and players know they'll get them (sometimes committing cynical fouls, knowing they'll get a card!). it doesn't seem to be a deterrent for anything though, does it. Why is that?
If you get a yellow card, it doesn't really impact on you. Yes, you have to be careful to not get another one...but the whole point is you should be playing in a sporting way and not getting any cards anyway...so it shouldn't change anything. If you get 5 yellow cards, then you get a one match suspension. With the size of squads these days if a player gets a 5th yellow, the manager can plan ahead and have a replacement of a similar standard. So it's not really a deterrent, it's definitely not any sort of punishment. It's nothing more than a rap over the knuckles!
Now I like my football. I love watching good football and can't stand watching players kicking lumps out of each other because they're too slow to make a tackle or, worse, they just want to stop someone and keep hacking him down. If that's how you have to play your football then just face it... you're not good enough! End of story. If Ronaldo is river-dancing down the wing at you and you aren't good enough to stop him, severing his leg at the knee is not an acceptable course of action. Football is a contact sport and should stay that way... solid, strong physical contact within the spirit of competition is great (who remembers Leeds v Chelsea in the early 70's with Chopper Harris and Norman Hunter? Great entertaining footie!). But fouling as a routine way of stopping someone who you can't stop is just deeatist and pathetic.
What the FA/FIFA, whoever, should do is follow the example in rugby. If you get a yellow card, you get 10 minutes in the sin-bin. This should stop the fouling... if you have immediate consequences to the offence it will force teams to think twice ablout their tactics. If you know you'll be a man down for 10 minutes you'll soon put a stop to it.
But you could have 2 or 3 players off at the same time, I hear you scream. That's right, you could. So stop the fouling and focus on playing footie. And then, in return, get the referees to differentiate between cycnical or deliberate fouling and strong, fair (if fractionally late) tackles. Then the football can flow. There's nothing wrong with a crippling tackle on Ronaldo every now and then, if it's fair with the right intent.
So... bring in the sin bin and make the yellow card the deterrent it should be and let football be football.
What confuses me most is the use of the Yellow card. I thought the yellow card was meant to act as a deterrent. It seems not. The yellow card is an accepted part of the game and players know they'll get them (sometimes committing cynical fouls, knowing they'll get a card!). it doesn't seem to be a deterrent for anything though, does it. Why is that?
If you get a yellow card, it doesn't really impact on you. Yes, you have to be careful to not get another one...but the whole point is you should be playing in a sporting way and not getting any cards anyway...so it shouldn't change anything. If you get 5 yellow cards, then you get a one match suspension. With the size of squads these days if a player gets a 5th yellow, the manager can plan ahead and have a replacement of a similar standard. So it's not really a deterrent, it's definitely not any sort of punishment. It's nothing more than a rap over the knuckles!
Now I like my football. I love watching good football and can't stand watching players kicking lumps out of each other because they're too slow to make a tackle or, worse, they just want to stop someone and keep hacking him down. If that's how you have to play your football then just face it... you're not good enough! End of story. If Ronaldo is river-dancing down the wing at you and you aren't good enough to stop him, severing his leg at the knee is not an acceptable course of action. Football is a contact sport and should stay that way... solid, strong physical contact within the spirit of competition is great (who remembers Leeds v Chelsea in the early 70's with Chopper Harris and Norman Hunter? Great entertaining footie!). But fouling as a routine way of stopping someone who you can't stop is just deeatist and pathetic.
What the FA/FIFA, whoever, should do is follow the example in rugby. If you get a yellow card, you get 10 minutes in the sin-bin. This should stop the fouling... if you have immediate consequences to the offence it will force teams to think twice ablout their tactics. If you know you'll be a man down for 10 minutes you'll soon put a stop to it.
But you could have 2 or 3 players off at the same time, I hear you scream. That's right, you could. So stop the fouling and focus on playing footie. And then, in return, get the referees to differentiate between cycnical or deliberate fouling and strong, fair (if fractionally late) tackles. Then the football can flow. There's nothing wrong with a crippling tackle on Ronaldo every now and then, if it's fair with the right intent.
So... bring in the sin bin and make the yellow card the deterrent it should be and let football be football.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)