Sunday 19 July 2015

Robin Van Persie - A Betrayal of Judas Iscariotic proportions

Arsenal fans have received lots of stick for the negative emotions displayed towards Robin Van Persie AKA Judas. The Iscariot version. The one of the 30 pieces of rusting silver fame.

He was with Arsenal for about 8 years and gave excellent service on the pitch for 18 months. Lucky git was paid for the 8 yeas though. He was the Diaby before the About Diary. His body part came with its own Ikea flatpack furniture.

Apart from his injury records, there were rumours of misdemeanours in the dressing room - bad mouthing a team mate to  journalists and apparently ensuring Emmanuel Adebayor was kicked out of Arsenal.

I dare say that I speak for Arsenal fans that his manner of leaving was galling. Team captain calling the ambition, structure and vision of the club into question publicly. If Liverpool fans think the Sterling situation was nauseating, just cast your mind back to the Van Persie one. Its from the same copy book but EVEN WORSE. He ensured he damaged his relationship with Arsenal to the extent that the club had no option but to let him go.

Fortunately for him, he was so instrumental to Manchester United winning the Premier League in his first season and Van Persie's only title in England. To be honest, I found some of his comments after the transfer to Manchester United noxious. "The little boy in him', 'Daddy Alex Ferguson', the hugs with Fergie. FFS, you've only just met the man for one minute and he is your daddy already. Also he celebrated scoring against Arsenal after calling Adebayor classless for doing the same thing. The man was a walking contradiction.

Unfortunately for Van Persie, Sir Alex Ferguson retired. People like Rio Ferdinand are on record as to how Sir Alex's retirement upset Van Persie. My conclusion is that the big man used him. Pure and simple. He needed him to go out in a blaze of glory, got what he wanted and buggered off.

Van Persie's upset feelings carried on into the new season. From the comments he made in public, he clearly didn't get along with his new Foster Daddy (David Moyes). Also according to briefings that appear to be coming from Old Trafford & Carrington, Van Persie started saving himself for the World Cup with stories of phantom injuries and indefinite recuperation period. He went to the World Cup under Van Gaal and had a somewhat successful tournament.

Both Van Gaal and Van Persie returned to Old Trafford at the beginning of last season, with the Van Persie family helping the Van Gaals to settle in Manchester. The first disappointment appears to be Van Gaal's decision to hand over the captain's arm band to Wayne Rooney. Subsequently and in line with Van Persie's recent interview, the handwriting on the wall became clearer. Van Gaal effectively wanted him out. Another betrayal of the little boy. Used by family Van Gaal to settle in Manchester & OT and dumped again. I  suspect Van Gaal knew all the tricks Van Persie used to keep himself fit for Holland before the World Cup and found these unacceptable now that he is the Manager at OT, hence his brutal decision to ask Van Persie to run along.

Now he is in Turkey, a great cultural designation and a fantastic holiday destination. Many United fans have commented on how much they cherish Van Persie's contribution to their 20th title win. Some Arsenal fans are perhaps willing to forgive with his recent comments highlighting his continued relationship with Arsene Wenger. Good for him.

Personally, I doubt I will ever be able to forgive a leader of men, who deserted and embarrassed his men to help their erstwhile opponent claim the ultimate annual prize. What intrigues me more is what does Van Persie think of all these? Is he happy with his ONE title? When he retires in another 4 or 5 years and reflects on his career, factors the league win and the betrayals (of Arsenal, Fergie and Van Gaal betraying him, his betrayal of Man United before the Word Cup) will he be happy? Will he think he made the right decision leaving Arsenal and joining Manchester United?

My gut willing is that he will not. Considering the fact that Mr Van Gaal issued him an exit visa  and his recent comments in the media, I doubt he has fond memories of Old Trafford for now. If the situation remains unchanged in the future and if neither of the fans of the two clubs he played for in England have fond memories of him and recognise him as a true fan favourite and legend of their club. I can bet he will be unhappier still.

If he had stayed at Arsenal that season, would we have won the league title, maybe yes. It is now accepted wisdom that Van Persie's goals in the 2012/13 season would have won any of the top 4 teams the title. His 26 goals could potentially have given Arsenal 98 goals in total and the title. Manchester United won the league with 86 goals. Also what if Arsenal win the 2015 / 16 league? Van Persie could have been leading the current Arsenal side well into his middle 30s.

As an individual with family, looking to better his life and that of his wife & kids, I wish him well. As a footballer, that betrayer of Arsenal and Arsene's patience with him, I say "YOU ARE A JUDAS". I hope that little child in you enjoys the latrine pit of football you have signed up for. F£*@ OFF &%+!

Sunday 12 July 2015

THE DANCZUKs - Are they representative of our political class

I'm not sure who is more popular (or should that be infamous) between Simon Danczuk or his (estranged / ex) wife Karen. 

Karen is very pleasing on the eye. Her twitter feed is heaven for dignified perverts. Her handle allows you feel good about yourself. After all the owner of the awesome cleavage is 100% ok with the  leering. 

Perhaps of less interest to many is Karen's previous role as a Councillor, she is only 31, she is a mother, used to be a businesswoman and looking to make a bigger name and possibly more money for herself via the media celebrity route. Good for her. What is of interest to me though is her role as a councillor although her term appears to have ended in May 2015. 

According to this authoritative website ,"Councillors are elected to the local council to represent their local community, so they must either live or work in the area. Becoming a councillor is both a rewarding and privileged form of public service. You will be in a position to make a difference to the quality of other people's daily lives and prospects"

Going by what has been revealed in the media recently, was Karen ever a fit and proper person to be a councillor? Should she ever have been allowed by a political party to put herself forward as a representative of other people? Someone who makes decisions to influence other peoples lives? 

Take a look at her rap sheet 

1) She had an affair with a married Simon Danczuk when she was 23 and he was 40

2) She made allegations of physical harm against her boy friend / partner / husband and later withdrew the allegations 

3) She decided the best way to gain public acceptance is not to do a great job as the representative of the people who elected her but to display her private parts in public 

4) Finally for me and the reason why I decided to write this article, she has played her part in turning her breakup with her husband into an undignified circus 

Now to Simon. a 40 something year old bloke pulling a twenty something barely out of her teens. Gimme some of that please. But guess what it often times end in disaster. You are 50, your plumbing stops working, she's 30, in her prime, looking to enjoy the best times of her sexual life and you are spent. RECIPE FOR DISASTER. BIG ONE 

Mr Danczuk is potentially one of 650 people at this moment who can be the Prime Minister of this country. Realistically he will never be prime minster except his Rochdale constituency decide to form a republic of their own. Even then, I suspect there will be a palace coup to ensure a more representative member of the community is 'elected' as Leader. 

Commendably Simon Danczuk has played a part in highlighting / uncovering historical abuse issues. This is something positive and well done to him. However his recent behaviour at his breakup with Karen suggests to me that Simon like is wife, is not a fit and proper person to 'rule' over us. His conduct over the break up denigrates everything about his office and if any of the accusations / allegations before the breakup are to be believed he is even more unqualified. 

Do the Danczuks understand the meaning of dignity? As people who appeared to be educated, do they understand you can say a lot with  grace without saying too much? Is this all about money for ridiculous facts about who cheated on who? How would you feel if your kids grow up and turn against both of you or either of you for the steps you have taken so far?

Fortunately I dont leave in Rochdale. But I'm ashamed the Danczuks are part of the elected political elites in a country where I live and pay my taxes. The party leadership that has put these people  forward for elections should cover its self with sack clothes, weep and apologise to the people of Rochdale for inflicting the Danczuks on them. If the Danczuks cannot manage their own personal affairs, they have absolutely no business managing the affairs of the public. 

Karen if you are really trying to make a right fist of this media celebrity malarkey, you must get yourself a wikipedia page. Your agent might need a rocket up his backside

Sunday 5 July 2015


The BBC is a great institution they say. Unfortunately I don't have enough information or knowledge to debunk this statement.

To be fair, there are many great institutions in the UK. The Royal Institute of Navigation and the Royal Institution of Naval Architects are also great institutions I hear but quite unlike the BBC, I am not threatened with eternal damnation for refusing to pay money into their coffers.

My big bugbear with the BBC is the issue of the TV Licence Fee. Why do I have to pay a licence fee? In case you don't know, you can find the official answer here

In summary, the £145.50 pa fee allows us watch a wide range of free to air TV, radio & online contents. Compared to what Sky & Virgin charge, this is quite cheap. If any of those pesky economists are to be believed, Sky should have no customers at all as they are more expensive than the BBC. But eh, these things are hard to comprehend for us small minded folks. 

The TV Licence fee also contributes to the costs of rolling out broadband to the UK population and funding Welsh Language TV channel (S4C) and local TV channels and allows the BBC's UK services to remain free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest. I get this completely, we the mugged off payers of the licence fee, subsidise the broadband access of a segment of the population. And there I was thinking subsidies were a dirty and bad thing. Wrong again. Why is watching the BBC without advertisement such a big thing? Is this denying advertisement companies additional income stream. Is this a restraint of trade issue by the way? I hope some hotshot lawyer will address this issue one day in a court of law. And BBC independence, EXCUSE ME. Ask the Tory party and why they are on a massive vendetta against the BBC. 

In addition to all the above, in 2013, we the TV licence fee paying pudding - head handed over £83m to the nice people at CAPITA (Capita Business Services Ltd) They are a part of  CAPITA Plc ( that great profit making business that just by coincidence wins a huge slice of government outsourcing contracts. Nice one. Don't you just love capitalism. 
Despite all of these big grammar, I still don't get why I have to pay the TV licence and in my simplistic understanding fund the lifestyles of so called BBC stars and promote British culture. If you need an inside track into the thinking of the organisation on this issue, you will need to set aside time to read this speech by the BBC Director General. You can find the speech here. Some of the headline stuff there is really shocking. 
According to the DG, one of the reasons for the licence fee and the BBC is because they make great programmes. So does Sky & Virgin by the way and so does the Nollywood movie industry in Nigeria. : - ) I exaggerate but you get my point. These ones however don't force me to pay for their "great programmes". They appeal to me, they trick me and they try to persuade me. They don't force me and threaten me with imprisonment. Its really sad and unbelievable how the issue of the licence fee is blighting the society it claims to be enlightening. Please read this article here or do your own research. 
According to its own record the BBC in the year 2013/14 made in excess of £3b from the collection of TV licence fees. For a fraction of this sum, Virgin & Sky will gladly make enough propaganda movies and programs to promote British culture. They will also ensure their news editorial policy is aligned with the British government's policies. Its what profit oriented organisations do. They ensure the payer of the piper dictates the tune. 
In theory, the £3b swiped from us by the BBC can buy over 16% of the shareholding of Sky. With less than 6 years worth of licence fees, the government and people of UK can buy all of Sky(lock, stock and barrel). Afford to put no further money into its operations while we ask it to get on its bike and pay us a return on our investment. Whereas with the BBC, it is a bottomless pit, you pay from the day you buy your first television and they never let you rest even if you are dead, they still demand payment. Here is one example
I really don't get it. How is watching Top Gear, the Graham Norton Show, the David Attenborough Show or listening to Classical Music on Radio 1 promoting British culture. Are the BBC arrogant enough to think these shows won't air if the BBC didn't exist? What British Culture is Eastenders or Come Dine with me promoting? I dare say not any British culture I can relate to despite leaving in this country for almost 15 years. Yet the man at the tip of BBC wants every household in the UK to pay to fund his organisation. How terribly conceited. 
In case it passed him by, the world has changed from 1946 when the TV licence started. There is something called Cable / Satellite TV now and also that wonderful thing called the Internet. The concept of the BBC is anachronistic. It hankers back to the days when Britain was a true super power. A time when the country had a genuine say in world affairs and the British way of life was something to be promoted and proud of. Now the reality is different. The British culture is one where almost 2/3rd of the whole population lives on benefits (see here ),  one where our young kids are travelling abroad to fight a war that has absolutely nothing to do with them and live under the worst set of circumstances you can imagine. A culture where our politicians are in it for their own benefits and that of their friends. Yet we hanker after promoting such a culture that is of no relevance to a growing number of the people living here. 
I will unfortunately continue to pay the TV licence because it is a nuisance and worth less than the hassle of avoiding it. But it is plain theft in my opinion. If anybody including the government wants to promote the "great programs" made by the BBC and spread "British culture", they should pay the BBC directly and not force me to. 
If any individuals or groups are so enamoured of the BBC that they want to pay for their services, they should be allowed to this voluntarily, after all people leave their inheritances to the Battersea Dog Home or set up a direct debit to pay them 50p every month. 
The BBC can stop the rest of us who don't appreciate what they do by putting all of their programs behind a pay wall. The Times have done it. So have The Sun. They can they charge whatever they like and run their programs in line with what they make from being the propaganda mouth piece of British culture. 
Of course, comments and feedback gladly welcome