On my way in to work this morning, Phil Upton was doing his usual "phone Phil" segment, which involves people of the general public phoning in to discuss topical matters.
Of course, todays topic was the recent riots and general civil disturbances seen around the UK.
Now, I like these phone ins, you really get a cross section of community speaking on a single platform - you wouldn't get that anywhere else, however, there is one thing that really gripes me about Phil Upton's phone ins - he's too tepid, he just accepts whatever is said by the caller, without offering a stable middle ground view.
I know we live in a "lefty" society now where everyone is right, no one is wrong, kids cant be disciplined and Police are merely spectators, but without a sensible voice chairing these live on-air discussions, they descend in to farce and just serve to give air time to loonies.
Take the call I heard this morning. A chap from Wolverhampton calls in. Having told you he's from Wolverhampton, you should probably be able to guess that he wasn't going to be an intellectual. Anyway, he called in and the point he wanted to make was about water cannons, and whether they should be used in the face of these riots.
Now there are sensible arguments to be made against the use of water cannons - firstly, the UK don't have many of them, and those that they do have are stationed in Northern Ireland. Secondly, they are slow ponderous things that are ideal for use against gatherings of balding, middle aged, pissed up football hooligans trying to fight another bunch of balding, middle aged, pissed up football hooligans - generally because they all gather in one place and have it out. However, the riots we have seen recently involve kids spread out over the length of a high street, running to and fro, legging it down alleys, through looted shops etc. I cant see that a water cannon would be of much use in this situation.
So there are decent arguments against Water Cannons in this context.
Anyway, back to our man from Wolverhampton, he was against Water Cannons, but his reasoning left a little to be desired. He said; "water cannons are no good, they just send people flying. Seeing a 20 stone man tumbling down the street is not a pretty sight". I'm sure it's not a pretty sight, but why does it matter? Will the English Tourist Board downgrade a town or city because of the eyesore of a 20 stone man tumbling down a street?
There are many possible arguments against Water Cannons, be they ethical, tactical or moral - But I'm pretty sure aesthetics aren't on that list.
Back to Phil Upton, in this situation, I'd expect any decent chair of any debate to step in and said "hold on a second, but you are talking rubbish", but no, we live in this lefty society where everyone is allowed their view, no matter how ridiculous, irrelevant or downright incorrect it may be.
Friday, 12 August 2011
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
The difference between right and wrong
Why is it in this country we can no longer distinguish between wrong and right?
I'm getting pretty damn frustrated at the attitude of the Police during the riots that are plaguing our cities at the moment.
Last Monday night, several hundred looters ran amok in Birmingham City Centre, but the reports on Tuesday said that the Police stood back and watched, with a brief to merely contain the violence. Great job there lads.
Dont get me wrong, I am not getting at the individual men and women who are out there in their protective gear carrying shields, they're brave, and simple doing a job. However, the tactics of the Police are far, far too soft, and this is clearly because the Police are worried about getting in to trouble for coming down too hard on these thugs.
I can see it now - officers getting sued because they broke someones arm, or someone falls over whilst being chased and hurts themselves more seriously.
This is all in the wake of the death of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper seller who was hit by a Police officer in London during the G20 protests, whilst walking away in a calm manner. Police are now evidently very cagey during large scale protests or riots because they know their actions will (quite rightly) be scrutinised. Police are now too cagey to do anything against these rioters, too scared of being convicted, too scared of criticism.
And this brings me to the point of this blog - our inability to tell right from wrong. Our police force has lost its moral compass.
It is WRONG to treat peaceful protests in an intimidating way, leading to ugly scuffles, like we have seen at recent protests in London where the vast majority were peaceful - I have seen this first hand. Although not involved in the protest in any way, I have witnessed the attitude and intimidating manner in which the Police force act during largely peaceful protests. I am of the opinion, that their excessive presence and bad attitude lead to more problems than they solve.
It is WRONG to beat up an old man walking away in a calm manner, just because there's a largely peaceful protest going on.
Yet, on the other hand, we have the passive attitude to the riots that we are seeing at the moment.
It is RIGHT to use physical force to apprehend those being violent, or looting, or damaging property. These are criminal acts, yet the Police are standing by and watching. It is RIGHT to use baton rounds, water cannons and aggressive techniques on these criminals.
So why can't the leaders of our Police force see right from wrong? We end up in a situation where looting and criminal vandalism is dealt with in a passive manner, yet peaceful protesters are kettled, held against their will and have situations where innocent unarmed newspaper sellers get beaten up.
Time for a bit of common sense.
Time to grab the moral compass from the Police, reset it, and hand it back.
I'm getting pretty damn frustrated at the attitude of the Police during the riots that are plaguing our cities at the moment.
Last Monday night, several hundred looters ran amok in Birmingham City Centre, but the reports on Tuesday said that the Police stood back and watched, with a brief to merely contain the violence. Great job there lads.
Dont get me wrong, I am not getting at the individual men and women who are out there in their protective gear carrying shields, they're brave, and simple doing a job. However, the tactics of the Police are far, far too soft, and this is clearly because the Police are worried about getting in to trouble for coming down too hard on these thugs.
I can see it now - officers getting sued because they broke someones arm, or someone falls over whilst being chased and hurts themselves more seriously.
This is all in the wake of the death of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper seller who was hit by a Police officer in London during the G20 protests, whilst walking away in a calm manner. Police are now evidently very cagey during large scale protests or riots because they know their actions will (quite rightly) be scrutinised. Police are now too cagey to do anything against these rioters, too scared of being convicted, too scared of criticism.
And this brings me to the point of this blog - our inability to tell right from wrong. Our police force has lost its moral compass.
It is WRONG to treat peaceful protests in an intimidating way, leading to ugly scuffles, like we have seen at recent protests in London where the vast majority were peaceful - I have seen this first hand. Although not involved in the protest in any way, I have witnessed the attitude and intimidating manner in which the Police force act during largely peaceful protests. I am of the opinion, that their excessive presence and bad attitude lead to more problems than they solve.
It is WRONG to beat up an old man walking away in a calm manner, just because there's a largely peaceful protest going on.
Yet, on the other hand, we have the passive attitude to the riots that we are seeing at the moment.
It is RIGHT to use physical force to apprehend those being violent, or looting, or damaging property. These are criminal acts, yet the Police are standing by and watching. It is RIGHT to use baton rounds, water cannons and aggressive techniques on these criminals.
So why can't the leaders of our Police force see right from wrong? We end up in a situation where looting and criminal vandalism is dealt with in a passive manner, yet peaceful protesters are kettled, held against their will and have situations where innocent unarmed newspaper sellers get beaten up.
Time for a bit of common sense.
Time to grab the moral compass from the Police, reset it, and hand it back.
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Annoying work habits
There are two things that really get on my nerves at work: over-noisy people and arse-lickers.
Unfortunately, in my office, I have one of each.
Firstly, we have a chap, lets call him D. He will laugh hysterically at everything he says, no matter whether it is remotely funny or not. Not only that, but his laugh is very annoying and loud - you know the type of laugh I'm talking about - the kind of laugh so loud and irritating you can hear it throughout the office. It's got the point where conversations with him don't last very long because the other person simply gets drowned out by his inane cackle.
Even as a write this, he's chuntering away, finding everything funny - god knows what he'd be like in a comedy club, they'd probably have to get a paramedic because he'd certainly get over excited and start hyperventilating.
Whatsmore, D is quite arrogant, big headed and not-at-all sensitive to people around him, so I don't think he's aware of the annoyance he causes to people. Trouble is, D's boss is a similar kind of guy. D and his boss can pointlessly rattle on for hours, neither listening to what the other says, both laughing at every single gap or pause in the conversation, both acting like arrogant dickheads.
Moving on, the 2nd most annoying office habit I currently suffer is arse-licking or brown-nosing. Now I think we're all a little guilty of this - aren't we? Everyone does (or should) treat their superiors with the relevant level of respect, and by definition, you probably don't apply that level of respect to your colleagues of the same importance as you.
However, there are some who take this to a new level. L works in my office and she is a master brown-noser, she must have studied it at uni she's so accomplished. She takes ignorance to a new level also, blanking people like me, yet whenever there is a manager (or higher) in the office for the day, she will always ask them if they're going to breakfast, going for lunch, if they want a coffee.
I dont mind L being friendly like this with her superiors if she shows a little respect and a similar level of respect to those around her, but she doesn't. Although I dont deal with L directly, I'm sure she'd be the type who would hesitate to step on you on her way up the ladder.
Unfortunately, in my office, I have one of each.
Firstly, we have a chap, lets call him D. He will laugh hysterically at everything he says, no matter whether it is remotely funny or not. Not only that, but his laugh is very annoying and loud - you know the type of laugh I'm talking about - the kind of laugh so loud and irritating you can hear it throughout the office. It's got the point where conversations with him don't last very long because the other person simply gets drowned out by his inane cackle.
Even as a write this, he's chuntering away, finding everything funny - god knows what he'd be like in a comedy club, they'd probably have to get a paramedic because he'd certainly get over excited and start hyperventilating.
Whatsmore, D is quite arrogant, big headed and not-at-all sensitive to people around him, so I don't think he's aware of the annoyance he causes to people. Trouble is, D's boss is a similar kind of guy. D and his boss can pointlessly rattle on for hours, neither listening to what the other says, both laughing at every single gap or pause in the conversation, both acting like arrogant dickheads.
Moving on, the 2nd most annoying office habit I currently suffer is arse-licking or brown-nosing. Now I think we're all a little guilty of this - aren't we? Everyone does (or should) treat their superiors with the relevant level of respect, and by definition, you probably don't apply that level of respect to your colleagues of the same importance as you.
However, there are some who take this to a new level. L works in my office and she is a master brown-noser, she must have studied it at uni she's so accomplished. She takes ignorance to a new level also, blanking people like me, yet whenever there is a manager (or higher) in the office for the day, she will always ask them if they're going to breakfast, going for lunch, if they want a coffee.
I dont mind L being friendly like this with her superiors if she shows a little respect and a similar level of respect to those around her, but she doesn't. Although I dont deal with L directly, I'm sure she'd be the type who would hesitate to step on you on her way up the ladder.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Walsall F.C, 20 years from now
I was going to write a blog solely about my thoughts on the future of Walsall F.C, then we went and thrashed Bristol Rovers 6-1, so I thought that deserved a bit of a mention too.
We absolutely destroyed Rovers, partly because we played really well, partly because they looked a poor side and allowed our midfield to dominate. Strangely enough, Walsall could easily have scored another 2 or 3, alas they didn't.
It's not the highest score I've seen as a Walsall fan - we had a couple of 5-0's under Richard Money and one under Mullen I think, but I also remember seeing the Saddlers beat Torquay 8-4 in a Johnston's-Paint-LDV-AutoWindscreens-League-trophy match - I think it was during the Graydon era, but it might have been earlier than that.
Anyway, thrashing Bristol Rovers was a fantastic result and the combined effect of Chris Nicholl and the players having a bit of confidence seems to be paying dividends, lets hope they can get a result at Notts County tonight.
And now, back to the original idea for today's blog.
I took a friend along to the Oldham game, he's a Villa fan, a referee and a keen footballer himself, he's been a few times to Walsall down the years, but it was his comments during the Oldham match that really got me thinking.
Over the past few years, the attendances at Walsall have dipped, some would say alarmingly so. I think the average attendance this season is 3,700ish, down from 4000ish last season, and down from a peak of 7,800ish in 2003/4.
Looking around at the sparsely populated Bescot Stadium during the Oldham match, my friend turned to me and said "there aint many here are there?", I shrugged and grunted "nah" in reply. He then said "you wont be playing here in 20 years", I turned to him and asked him to elaborate, and he went on to explain that he couldn't see how a club like Walsall could survive in their current state with such dwindling and disenfranchised support base.
In all honesty, it's not something I'd thought about, I'd never really imagined where we would be 20 years from now, but my friend seemed to have a point.
As a Villa fan, you could easily dismiss him as one of the 'premier league generation' of fans who have lost touch with the real game and it's values - but he's a fully qualified referee who officiates all around the Midlands at varying levels, a resident in Walsall borough and he works in the town. Furthermore, he's mostly unaware of the financial situation of Walsall F.C, nor the rental arrangement by which Walsall use Bescot Stadium.
So he'd got me thinking - Will WFC be playing at Bescot in 20 years? Will WFC still be in existence? Will WFC still be in the league?
I guess this is a question that goes beyond Walsall F.C, there are after all other lower league clubs with dwindling attendances in sparsely populated stadia. Will League 2 exist in 20 years? With all the money sloshing about in the Premier League, will we see the demise of lower-league football in this country? I don't think so - there are enough success stories in the Conference and League 2 to suggest that lower-league football in this country is still in a healthy state.
However, when it comes to Walsall F.C, I fear the worst. The current state of affairs is bad enough - the club are heavily in debt, they rent the stadium and the owner wants out. Couple this with the proximity of other, much more successful clubs and you really do being to question whether Walsall F.C really have a long term future at Bescot Stadium? I'm sure that there will always been a football club in Walsall in one form or another, but is the current club sustainable?
I would argue that it isn't, and that's what makes me worry for the next 20 years.
We absolutely destroyed Rovers, partly because we played really well, partly because they looked a poor side and allowed our midfield to dominate. Strangely enough, Walsall could easily have scored another 2 or 3, alas they didn't.
It's not the highest score I've seen as a Walsall fan - we had a couple of 5-0's under Richard Money and one under Mullen I think, but I also remember seeing the Saddlers beat Torquay 8-4 in a Johnston's-Paint-LDV-AutoWindscreens-League-trophy match - I think it was during the Graydon era, but it might have been earlier than that.
Anyway, thrashing Bristol Rovers was a fantastic result and the combined effect of Chris Nicholl and the players having a bit of confidence seems to be paying dividends, lets hope they can get a result at Notts County tonight.
And now, back to the original idea for today's blog.
I took a friend along to the Oldham game, he's a Villa fan, a referee and a keen footballer himself, he's been a few times to Walsall down the years, but it was his comments during the Oldham match that really got me thinking.
Over the past few years, the attendances at Walsall have dipped, some would say alarmingly so. I think the average attendance this season is 3,700ish, down from 4000ish last season, and down from a peak of 7,800ish in 2003/4.
Looking around at the sparsely populated Bescot Stadium during the Oldham match, my friend turned to me and said "there aint many here are there?", I shrugged and grunted "nah" in reply. He then said "you wont be playing here in 20 years", I turned to him and asked him to elaborate, and he went on to explain that he couldn't see how a club like Walsall could survive in their current state with such dwindling and disenfranchised support base.
In all honesty, it's not something I'd thought about, I'd never really imagined where we would be 20 years from now, but my friend seemed to have a point.
As a Villa fan, you could easily dismiss him as one of the 'premier league generation' of fans who have lost touch with the real game and it's values - but he's a fully qualified referee who officiates all around the Midlands at varying levels, a resident in Walsall borough and he works in the town. Furthermore, he's mostly unaware of the financial situation of Walsall F.C, nor the rental arrangement by which Walsall use Bescot Stadium.
So he'd got me thinking - Will WFC be playing at Bescot in 20 years? Will WFC still be in existence? Will WFC still be in the league?
I guess this is a question that goes beyond Walsall F.C, there are after all other lower league clubs with dwindling attendances in sparsely populated stadia. Will League 2 exist in 20 years? With all the money sloshing about in the Premier League, will we see the demise of lower-league football in this country? I don't think so - there are enough success stories in the Conference and League 2 to suggest that lower-league football in this country is still in a healthy state.
However, when it comes to Walsall F.C, I fear the worst. The current state of affairs is bad enough - the club are heavily in debt, they rent the stadium and the owner wants out. Couple this with the proximity of other, much more successful clubs and you really do being to question whether Walsall F.C really have a long term future at Bescot Stadium? I'm sure that there will always been a football club in Walsall in one form or another, but is the current club sustainable?
I would argue that it isn't, and that's what makes me worry for the next 20 years.
Friday, 21 January 2011
Traffic lights in Walsall
If any of you have ever driven through Walsall, you will know what a nightmare it is.
Walsall Council seems to have an unhealthy obsessions with traffic lights - the most absurd stretch is between the Arboretum crossroads and Junction 10 of the M6, where you drive through 13 sets of traffic lights along a stretch of road approximately 2000 metres long, making an average of a set of lights every 153 metres.
Is that really necessary? Does that amount of traffic lights promote free flowing traffic? I think not.
Whatsmore, the lights are frequently set in such a way that you get stopped at every single one of them - this is no good for your car, and means more pollution from cars stopping and then having to accelerate back up to speed.
This stop-start driving through Walsall also creates a further problem - you get a 'bunching' affect on traffic whereby you'll get a rush of around 40 or 50 cars coming along a stretch of road almost bumper-to-bumper, and then the road will be empty until the next 'bunch' of cars come along. This isn't using the road network to it's capacity, it's artificially creating queues and traffic.
Give me roundabouts any day!
Walsall Council seems to have an unhealthy obsessions with traffic lights - the most absurd stretch is between the Arboretum crossroads and Junction 10 of the M6, where you drive through 13 sets of traffic lights along a stretch of road approximately 2000 metres long, making an average of a set of lights every 153 metres.
Is that really necessary? Does that amount of traffic lights promote free flowing traffic? I think not.
Whatsmore, the lights are frequently set in such a way that you get stopped at every single one of them - this is no good for your car, and means more pollution from cars stopping and then having to accelerate back up to speed.
This stop-start driving through Walsall also creates a further problem - you get a 'bunching' affect on traffic whereby you'll get a rush of around 40 or 50 cars coming along a stretch of road almost bumper-to-bumper, and then the road will be empty until the next 'bunch' of cars come along. This isn't using the road network to it's capacity, it's artificially creating queues and traffic.
Give me roundabouts any day!
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Attention Pet Owners!
Attention pet owners! Thought I'd share with you a website Ive found today - Discount Pet Supplies have a huge choice of supplies for your pet, and the prices are good.
I bought my dog Buster a jacket from their range of dog jackets - he should be nice and snug now on his winter walkies!
I bought my dog Buster a jacket from their range of dog jackets - he should be nice and snug now on his winter walkies!
Sutton Road Walsall to be 30mph limit
Heard Councillor Tom Ansell on the radio the other day speaking about how from March 2011 the Sutton Road in Walsall will be reduced from a 40mph speed limit to 30mph. I'm confused as to why this is needed?
Walsall Council seems to be dead set against anyone driving at more than 30mph in the borough!
If you dont know the Sutton Road, it's a wide, fairly straight road, with verges on either side, it could even have been a dual carriageway so I am told - so I really cannot see the thinking behind reducing the speed limit - apart from being able to punish more people for driving at 34mph!
Walsall Council seems to be dead set against anyone driving at more than 30mph in the borough!
If you dont know the Sutton Road, it's a wide, fairly straight road, with verges on either side, it could even have been a dual carriageway so I am told - so I really cannot see the thinking behind reducing the speed limit - apart from being able to punish more people for driving at 34mph!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)