Wednesday, February 8, 2012
TODAY IN FOOTIE
Redknapp cleared and Capello show's the British that 'innocent until proven guilty' is more than merely a phrase trotted out on television dramas.
Vine wins gong for funniest joke
King of the one-liners Tim Vine picked up the award for the year's funniest joke at the Loaded Laftas comedy awards.
He saw off competition from acts including Jimmy Carr and magician Paul Daniels, winning with his gag: "Conjunctivitis.com - that's a site for sore eyes."
MAD AS A BAG OF SHPIDERS !
Hardy Bucks is set in a small town in West Ireland, following the mis-adventures of five hapless culchies down on their luck, trying to leave their backwards rural hometown and attempt to reach Dublin and sample modern civilization.
The three-episode TV series, written by the writing trio Tordoff, Maloney and Cockayne, was commissioned and broadcast by RTE from 12 October 2010 until 26 October 2010. Following the success of their debut TV series, the Hardy Bucks were commissioned by RTE to produce a half-hour Christmas special which aired on 26 December 2010. The DVD for series 2 was released on 12 December, 2011.
The three-episode TV series, written by the writing trio Tordoff, Maloney and Cockayne, was commissioned and broadcast by RTE from 12 October 2010 until 26 October 2010. Following the success of their debut TV series, the Hardy Bucks were commissioned by RTE to produce a half-hour Christmas special which aired on 26 December 2010. The DVD for series 2 was released on 12 December, 2011.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Chelsea 3-0 Manchester United - this looks like a job for Howard Webb !
Manchester United had a familiar saviour on Sunday afternoon when they slipped to a three-goal deficit at the hands of Chelsea. But it was not Wayne Rooney nor Javier Hernandez who rescued a point for the champions, it was Howard Webb who performed his (now perfected) deus ex machina act and awarded two soft penalties against the hosts to allow Sir Alex Ferguson's side to eventually complete a Superman-like recovery.
 |
| HOWARD JOINS IN WITH TEAMMATES ROONEY, GIGGS, EVRA AND HERNANDEZ AT THE FINAL WHISTLE AS MANCHESTER UNITED DRAW 3-3 WITH CHELSEA  |
Sunday, February 5, 2012
WELL DONE HOWARD !!!!!!!!!!
When Sir Alex Ferguson says ' We should have had 4 penalties ' .... is he actually saying that referee Howard Webb has to return half his wage pack ?
Sir Alex received a red card from Howard Webb in the tunnel at half time, it read ' Happy Valentines Fergie ..... from a secret admirer ' ..... and it was simply signed HW.
CHELSEA 3 - MAN UTD 3
Saturday, February 4, 2012
WHERE DID IT ALL GO WRONG ?
HOW I WISH WE WERE BACK IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS .......... THE DAYS WHEN THE TABLOIDS DIDN'T DETERMINE A PERSONS GUILT OR INNOCENCE BEFORE THE LEGAL SYSTEM HAD A CHANCE TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE, CONSIDER THE FACTS AND COME TO A DECISION BASED ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, AND NOT ON HERESAY.
Innocent until proven guilty. It's just a catchphrase now. It's one of those things we say. We don't much mean it. Allegedly is the same. Ever noticed how they use allegedly on shows like Have I Got News For You? It's a punchline.
They throw it in with a raised eyebrow and a cheeky grin.
Maybe that is what we should do here.
John Terry is innocent until proven guilty. Little pause for comic effect. Wink to the camera, wait for the laugh. Allegedly.
In the end, it came down to a shouting contest and the lords of Twitter, the frantic self-publicists in Westminster such as Damian Collins MP and the sages of the newsprint and airwaves shouted loudest.
They did not always shout with great understanding, or even logic, but they shouted to the rolling rhythm of a bandwagon that was hurtling towards its inevitable destination.
A social lynching, a friend of mine called the events of the last few days.
He's just one of those old-school hacks, and football's not even his thing any more; but his instincts were right, and he nailed this one.
If Terry was to be removed before his trial, it had to be a football decision.
If Fabio Capello, the England manager, thought that he divided the dressing room, or his presence would prove a distraction, then he had to act, as he did before the World Cup, the first time Terry was sacked.
Capello, however, remained staunchly behind his captain this time. He was in Italy when the decision was taken, a manager paid £6million annually but not trusted to make selection calls.
His successor should be taking notes.
The next crisis for the England team - and there will be one, because there always is - should be dropped directly on the toes of the FA board, those wizards of governance.
The impossible job just got a little easier: for £6m, the FA now employ a man in a tracksuit, no more. Aggravation is on their watch. Good luck all.
The board will get their tummies tickled this morning, no doubt, and be widely praised for taking a firm line. The opposite is true.
The tough call would have been to resist, to say a man cannot lose his job without being given the chance to defend himself in due process and that however unfortunate the timing of Terry's trial, it remained a matter for the courts.
Emmanuel Frimpong, on loan to Wolves and one of the Twitter stormers, did not seem to understand this.
The FA were out of order, he said. 'If Anton Ferdinand was in the England team and was being charged for racism, would the FA wait?'
As if the FA set court dates.
His words were reported as further evidence of the mood against Terry, rather than an argument with a bus-sized hole in its centre.
Like that of Jason Roberts, who compared Terry's situation to Rio Ferdinand's in 2003, left out of the England squad before his hearing for missing a drugs test.
The difference being there was no question of whether Ferdinand was guilty. He should have taken the test, he was absent. Case closed. The FA knew the verdict in advance.
A comparison would be if Terry had racially abused Anton Ferdinand as he walked past, midway through a television interview, on camera, with utter certainty for all to see. There would be no question of waiting for formal process then. A decision could be made that night, without complaint. Nobody here condones racism.
It is the fact Terry has pleaded not guilty and could be found so that is the awkward complication, because we shouldn't condone pre-judgment either.
Still, the FA say their action in no way suggests wrongdoing on Terry's part. Allegedly.
Terry will not play for Chelsea against Manchester United on Sunday.
He would not have played in last weekend's FA Cup match against Queens Park Rangers either, but was concerned it would be interpreted as a tactical injury to avoid a poisonous atmosphere and the handshake issue.
His knee injury, however, could be a serious one.
Terry spent Friday afternoon undergoing further tests, having consulted a specialist on Thursday, and his participation in England's next match with Holland on February 29 has to be doubtful.
This would leave him with the rest of the season to make a decision on whether to be available for England at Euro 2012.
He will not be rushed into making the call, but is very conflicted on the issue: upset at what he sees as a lack of support by the FA, but loyal towards Capello, who was known to be against the decision of the FA board, taken above his head.
Capello told Terry as recently as Thursday night that he would still be his captain next summer and remains convinced he is the best man for the job.
The idea he restored Terry to the role out of pity is laughable. Capello believes English football is unique in seeking leadership from its captain and feels Steven Gerrard did not fulfil that role in 2010.
Even Terry's supposed mutiny in South Africa is now viewed benignly by Capello, who says he was the only player with the confidence to speak up about dissatisfaction in the camp.
It is not unthinkable, if Terry goes to Euro 2012, that the manager will continue to lean on him as Sir Clive Woodward did Lawrence Dallaglio, after he was replaced by Martin Johnson following a tabloid scandal.
Johnson came into his own on match days, but Dallaglio remained Woodward's man behind the scenes, his real World Cup captain.
It is now for Terry to decide whether he wishes to risk another social lynching purely by being part of Capello's squad.
Yet no doubt whenever anyone refers to the disgraced ex-captain, the shamed ex-captain, the dishonoured, twice-sacked pariah and former England captain they will be careful to remind all that he is, of course, innocent until proven guilty. Allegedly.
By MARTIN SAMUEL 3rd February 2012
 |
| IF ONLY PAUL THE OCTOPUS WERE STILL WITH US ..... HE'D SORT IT OUT |
Innocent until proven guilty. It's just a catchphrase now. It's one of those things we say. We don't much mean it. Allegedly is the same. Ever noticed how they use allegedly on shows like Have I Got News For You? It's a punchline.
They throw it in with a raised eyebrow and a cheeky grin.
Maybe that is what we should do here.
John Terry is innocent until proven guilty. Little pause for comic effect. Wink to the camera, wait for the laugh. Allegedly.
In the end, it came down to a shouting contest and the lords of Twitter, the frantic self-publicists in Westminster such as Damian Collins MP and the sages of the newsprint and airwaves shouted loudest.
They did not always shout with great understanding, or even logic, but they shouted to the rolling rhythm of a bandwagon that was hurtling towards its inevitable destination.
A social lynching, a friend of mine called the events of the last few days.
He's just one of those old-school hacks, and football's not even his thing any more; but his instincts were right, and he nailed this one.
If Terry was to be removed before his trial, it had to be a football decision.
If Fabio Capello, the England manager, thought that he divided the dressing room, or his presence would prove a distraction, then he had to act, as he did before the World Cup, the first time Terry was sacked.
Capello, however, remained staunchly behind his captain this time. He was in Italy when the decision was taken, a manager paid £6million annually but not trusted to make selection calls.
His successor should be taking notes.
The next crisis for the England team - and there will be one, because there always is - should be dropped directly on the toes of the FA board, those wizards of governance.
The impossible job just got a little easier: for £6m, the FA now employ a man in a tracksuit, no more. Aggravation is on their watch. Good luck all.
The board will get their tummies tickled this morning, no doubt, and be widely praised for taking a firm line. The opposite is true.
The tough call would have been to resist, to say a man cannot lose his job without being given the chance to defend himself in due process and that however unfortunate the timing of Terry's trial, it remained a matter for the courts.
Emmanuel Frimpong, on loan to Wolves and one of the Twitter stormers, did not seem to understand this.
The FA were out of order, he said. 'If Anton Ferdinand was in the England team and was being charged for racism, would the FA wait?'
As if the FA set court dates.
His words were reported as further evidence of the mood against Terry, rather than an argument with a bus-sized hole in its centre.
Like that of Jason Roberts, who compared Terry's situation to Rio Ferdinand's in 2003, left out of the England squad before his hearing for missing a drugs test.
The difference being there was no question of whether Ferdinand was guilty. He should have taken the test, he was absent. Case closed. The FA knew the verdict in advance.
A comparison would be if Terry had racially abused Anton Ferdinand as he walked past, midway through a television interview, on camera, with utter certainty for all to see. There would be no question of waiting for formal process then. A decision could be made that night, without complaint. Nobody here condones racism.
It is the fact Terry has pleaded not guilty and could be found so that is the awkward complication, because we shouldn't condone pre-judgment either.
Still, the FA say their action in no way suggests wrongdoing on Terry's part. Allegedly.
Terry will not play for Chelsea against Manchester United on Sunday.
He would not have played in last weekend's FA Cup match against Queens Park Rangers either, but was concerned it would be interpreted as a tactical injury to avoid a poisonous atmosphere and the handshake issue.
His knee injury, however, could be a serious one.
Terry spent Friday afternoon undergoing further tests, having consulted a specialist on Thursday, and his participation in England's next match with Holland on February 29 has to be doubtful.
This would leave him with the rest of the season to make a decision on whether to be available for England at Euro 2012.
He will not be rushed into making the call, but is very conflicted on the issue: upset at what he sees as a lack of support by the FA, but loyal towards Capello, who was known to be against the decision of the FA board, taken above his head.
Capello told Terry as recently as Thursday night that he would still be his captain next summer and remains convinced he is the best man for the job.
The idea he restored Terry to the role out of pity is laughable. Capello believes English football is unique in seeking leadership from its captain and feels Steven Gerrard did not fulfil that role in 2010.
Even Terry's supposed mutiny in South Africa is now viewed benignly by Capello, who says he was the only player with the confidence to speak up about dissatisfaction in the camp.
It is not unthinkable, if Terry goes to Euro 2012, that the manager will continue to lean on him as Sir Clive Woodward did Lawrence Dallaglio, after he was replaced by Martin Johnson following a tabloid scandal.
Johnson came into his own on match days, but Dallaglio remained Woodward's man behind the scenes, his real World Cup captain.
It is now for Terry to decide whether he wishes to risk another social lynching purely by being part of Capello's squad.
Yet no doubt whenever anyone refers to the disgraced ex-captain, the shamed ex-captain, the dishonoured, twice-sacked pariah and former England captain they will be careful to remind all that he is, of course, innocent until proven guilty. Allegedly.
By MARTIN SAMUEL 3rd February 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
MR. UPPITY
In the opening few pages of this, the 11th work in the Mr Man series, we are almost led to expect of Hargreaves a foray into dialectical materialism.
We meet Mr Uppity with his top hat and monocle - a clear and overt representation of the bourgeois industrialist. Other arriviste trappings such as his long limousine and imposing townhouse further give the game away.
In a thinly-veiled reference to the oppression of the workers by the ruling class, we are told that Mr Uppity is rude to everyone, and the detail that he has no friends in Bigtown explicitly informs us that the masses are on the brink of revolution. Are we about to bear witness to class war, Hargreaves-style? To see Mr Uppity brought to account by the revolutionary power of the proletariat? Vanquished and overthrown by the party of the workers?
Not so. Mr Uppity is no Marxian analysis, no Leninist prescription for class action. As always, Hargreaves' inherent and essential conservatism comes to bear. His critique of the bourgeoisie comes not from the proletariat but from the feudal aristocracy. It is the authority of a king that places limits upon Mr Uppity's excesses, as his usurpation and arbitrary exercise of power has violated 'the natural order of things'. Hence the protection the masses are dealt in response to this transgression is paternal, and they receive it as subjects not radical agents of change.
Being so staunch a traditionalist, Hargreaves of necessity is a reformer not a revolutionary. The King does not have Mr Uppity executed, imprisoned or even sent into exile. There is no state seizure and collectivization of his wealth, or in fact any redistribution at all. (Despite his pomp and grandeur, the King no longer has such powers - both the outward self-importance and ultimate weakness of his intervention appear little more than a face-saving exercise for his waning hereditary rule.)
Rather, in the end it is the mildest of all regulation that is imposed upon the capitalist class. The ownership of the means of production remains the same, with no fundamental change to the economic base - just some superstructural tinkering to rein-in any overly brutal treading on the small man. The ruling class can do pretty much as it did before, as long as it says 'please' and 'thank you'. The aristocracy is duly appeased.
Hence we arrive at the Britain Hargreaves lived in - a gently regulated capitalism coupled with sham aristocracy, maintained by our own collective nostalgia and a national lack of appetite for mass action.
Reviews Written by
Hamilton Richardson (London, UK)
We meet Mr Uppity with his top hat and monocle - a clear and overt representation of the bourgeois industrialist. Other arriviste trappings such as his long limousine and imposing townhouse further give the game away.
In a thinly-veiled reference to the oppression of the workers by the ruling class, we are told that Mr Uppity is rude to everyone, and the detail that he has no friends in Bigtown explicitly informs us that the masses are on the brink of revolution. Are we about to bear witness to class war, Hargreaves-style? To see Mr Uppity brought to account by the revolutionary power of the proletariat? Vanquished and overthrown by the party of the workers? Not so. Mr Uppity is no Marxian analysis, no Leninist prescription for class action. As always, Hargreaves' inherent and essential conservatism comes to bear. His critique of the bourgeoisie comes not from the proletariat but from the feudal aristocracy. It is the authority of a king that places limits upon Mr Uppity's excesses, as his usurpation and arbitrary exercise of power has violated 'the natural order of things'. Hence the protection the masses are dealt in response to this transgression is paternal, and they receive it as subjects not radical agents of change.
Being so staunch a traditionalist, Hargreaves of necessity is a reformer not a revolutionary. The King does not have Mr Uppity executed, imprisoned or even sent into exile. There is no state seizure and collectivization of his wealth, or in fact any redistribution at all. (Despite his pomp and grandeur, the King no longer has such powers - both the outward self-importance and ultimate weakness of his intervention appear little more than a face-saving exercise for his waning hereditary rule.)
Rather, in the end it is the mildest of all regulation that is imposed upon the capitalist class. The ownership of the means of production remains the same, with no fundamental change to the economic base - just some superstructural tinkering to rein-in any overly brutal treading on the small man. The ruling class can do pretty much as it did before, as long as it says 'please' and 'thank you'. The aristocracy is duly appeased.
Hence we arrive at the Britain Hargreaves lived in - a gently regulated capitalism coupled with sham aristocracy, maintained by our own collective nostalgia and a national lack of appetite for mass action.
Reviews Written by
Hamilton Richardson (London, UK)
Thursday, February 2, 2012
DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH FOOD IN ?
The 46th Super Bowl will take place on February 5, 2012 at Lucas Oil Stadium. Kickoff is scheduled for 6:30 ET on NBC.
 |
| Well, this should keep me going until Madonna starts to rattle her bones. |
THE IRISH SOPA [Stop Online Piracy Act]
While the European Union is claiming that Stop Online Piracy Act was a bad legislation and nobody needed it, Ireland seems to be not getting the memo.
According to Irish legal experts, the authorities over there are about to bring in a SOPA-style bill that is even vaguer and open-ended. Indeed, it turned out that the Irish law will let record labels order broadband providers to block access to certain online services. However, Sean Sherlock (the Minister of State at the department of Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation) insists that the suggested legislation is completely different to the American Stop Online Piracy Act. Instead, it is only addressing the High Court judgement that had been handed down by Mr Justice Peter Charleton regarding to copyright legislation, according to Sherlock.
Nevertheless, the new “statutory instrument” of the country’s government seems to threaten to do the same things as SOPA. For example, it allows Internet service providers to block online services suspected of having copyrighted content on them.
Worse still, the entertainment industry could also ask a judge to order broadband providers to block services like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook since they are claimed to contain their copyrighted material. Indeed, according to the suggested legislation, all the rights owner has to do is show a judge their material on the website and after that it will be allowed to order the Internet service provider to pull the plug.
Considering the fact that Google and Facebook are in fact Dublin’s largest employers, it might be very embarrassing for the government to see their websites banned in the country. According to the Irish legal expert, part of the Irish problem is that the tool in question being drawn up is quite woolly, so it will undoubtedly take a test case before we can know what the result will be. The expert underlined that politically, it is a no-win scenario. Even with the government being ready to open the legal doors for the copyright holders to start directing access policies of broadband providers, the entertainment industry is frothing and fuming.
Ironically enough, by taking such approach, the authorities can also attract the anger of a growing sector of the technology and digital communities. Indeed, it would be quite unusual to alienate both sides of a legislative argument.
According to Irish legal experts, the authorities over there are about to bring in a SOPA-style bill that is even vaguer and open-ended. Indeed, it turned out that the Irish law will let record labels order broadband providers to block access to certain online services. However, Sean Sherlock (the Minister of State at the department of Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation) insists that the suggested legislation is completely different to the American Stop Online Piracy Act. Instead, it is only addressing the High Court judgement that had been handed down by Mr Justice Peter Charleton regarding to copyright legislation, according to Sherlock.
 |
| EIRCOM ARE THE WORST, THEY ALREADY BLOCK SITES BEFORE ANY REGULATION HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE ...... DO YOURSELF A FAVOUR AND SIGN UP WITH UPC |
Worse still, the entertainment industry could also ask a judge to order broadband providers to block services like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook since they are claimed to contain their copyrighted material. Indeed, according to the suggested legislation, all the rights owner has to do is show a judge their material on the website and after that it will be allowed to order the Internet service provider to pull the plug.
Considering the fact that Google and Facebook are in fact Dublin’s largest employers, it might be very embarrassing for the government to see their websites banned in the country. According to the Irish legal expert, part of the Irish problem is that the tool in question being drawn up is quite woolly, so it will undoubtedly take a test case before we can know what the result will be. The expert underlined that politically, it is a no-win scenario. Even with the government being ready to open the legal doors for the copyright holders to start directing access policies of broadband providers, the entertainment industry is frothing and fuming.
Ironically enough, by taking such approach, the authorities can also attract the anger of a growing sector of the technology and digital communities. Indeed, it would be quite unusual to alienate both sides of a legislative argument.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
THE EPITOME OF THE SAYING
People, like sheep, tend to follow a leader - occasionally in the right direction.
Alexander Chase
Alexander Chase
IT'S '10 ITEMS OR FEWER' ... NOT '10 ITEMS OR LESS' !
Even Hollywood gets it wrong .... the phrase has even been made into what looks like a terrible movie starring Morgan Freeman.
So if you want to be cooler than a supermarket aisle, here’s one simple rule: if you can count the things you’re talking about, use ‘fewer‘. If you can’t, use ‘less‘.
You can’t count time: Less time
You can’t count water: Less water
You can’t count fat: Less fat
You CAN count numbers of hours: Fewer hours
and numbers of cups: Fewer cups of water,
and numbers of calories: Fewer calories
 |
| And lousy grammer |
You can’t count time: Less time
You can’t count water: Less water
You can’t count fat: Less fat
You CAN count numbers of hours: Fewer hours
and numbers of cups: Fewer cups of water,
and numbers of calories: Fewer calories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)