I have had two bruising encounters in the last 2 weeks with two very big organisations and I fear this is symptomatic of what I have come to expect of big organisations. People slag off Ed Miliband for supposedly demonising big organisations but forgive me they are bad and nasty and unforgivably INCOMPETENT and I should know. TRUST ME. Below is the breakdown of my encounter with one of them.
About 18 months ago, I moved accommodation. Bigger place for relatively less money if you compare what I was getting to what I was giving up. As I try my best to be meticulous, I notified all my utility providers of my last day at the premises by calling their expensive 08 numbers. My electricity provider was having none of it as they wanted me to call at a later date. I was determined not to. I have called you and notified you. I have my call records to evidence this. I will not call at a later date.
13 months after I moved out, I got a letter at my new (13 MONTHS OLD) place claiming they had been looking for me and will now charge me £12 for the privilege of finding me, asking for over £100 unpaid electricity bill, threatening me with bailiffs, court case and a poor credit history.
What a cheek? I was incensed & livid. These 'people' have my mobile phone number and email address and had to spend £12 looking for me. GREAT. As my account with them was always in credit as I paid by direct debit, I wasn't too worried of the final outcome. In fact I expected a refund of approximately £30 from them after leaving the premises in question. However as I was determined not to call them, I let the £30 go. Also, I knew my electricity consumption profile guaranteed that there was no way I was owing anything.
I replied to their first letter asking them to log my letter as a complaint. By the way, I don't know about you but I am tired of calling utility companies (water, mobile, telephone, TV, Gas, Electricity, Banks, Council etc) by telephone. Their numbers are expensive to call and the people who pick up the phone are NUMPTIES. No power of comprehension. They don't have a brain cell between them and are very versed like a parrot at repeating their well rehearsed lines. You dare not ask to speak with their manager. I know for a fact you get bollocked for passing on a call to your manager.
I sent my letter via the registered mail facility. Another bug bear of mine is that big companies are very adept at 'not receiving' your letter if sent by normal post. They are also adept at 'not finding' any records of your calls when they have cocked up. This is why I will always send my letters by registered post and seek to reclaim my cost from them. I'm sure they will find a way around this very soon.
In my letter, I asked for the meter readings for the outstanding bill. NO RESPONSE. 2 weeks later, I received another threatening letter. Same spiel. I responded in a similar manner. All these while I was living in fear that a bailiff might turn up or court summons might be posted through the door.
There was no response to my 2nd letter although the next demand from them was a for a reduced amount. The outstanding had now gone down to £60. I knew I had them. They didn't have any readings. They only wanted to try it on.
I then wrote a 3rd letter to the Executive Complaint Team and had a mealy mouthed guy call me on my mobile. WHOOPEE EFFING DOO. They were looking for me but had my mobile number all along. They had also sent me a marketing email in the interim.
The guy on the phone tried to be smart and said they were going to write off the outstanding debt. I suspect he was expecting me to kiss his backside. I told him where to jump off and made clear I wasn't expecting debt forgiveness. He threatened not to write the bill off which meant that the process (Court Case, Bailiffs etc) will continue. I told him off and made him understand that the UK wasn't quite at the level of Iran and Afghanistan yet. There are laws (barely I dare say) in this country my friend and your threats are baseless. I was now more confident of the whole outcome. To me, this was an admission they had got it wrong.
I told him never to call me EVER AGAIN and to put any offer at resolving my complaint in a letter. I have since received the letter. The deception and incompetence contained in the letter is staggering. They claimed to have responded to my initial letters by writing to my old address. BIG FAT LIE. The same address I quit almost 18 months ago. LIAR LIAR PANT ON FIRE. They know how to send the 'bills' to the right address but the complaint response to the wrong address. YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP.
They offered me £25 as a goodwill gesture. Seems remarkably close to the £30 refund I was expecting initially. This offer has even incensed me further. You have threatened me and wasted my time. I have spent hours outside of my daily routine writing unnecessary letters to you, expend not insignificant sums posting those same letters to you, spent time worrying that bailiffs will turn up at my door and you offer me £25. NAUSEATING
I have reviewed the meter readings they sent and it is a JOKE. A very unfunny one. It is way out by over 2 weeks and just reinforces my thoughts that they were making it up all along. Write Joe Public a threatening letter, he panics and pays up and our shareholders are richer. CAPITALISM WORKS.
The system is broken. The system that allows a big corporation make the life of the common man a misery for no reason bar that big company' incompetence. For me, this is not an isolated case. This is very symptomatic of big companies and I have epexerinced it at first hand.
I am still debating on my next steps. Ideally if I have the power, I will ensure there are heavy fines for companies that engage in this debacle especially in cases like mine where their incompetence is glaring.
I will make sure that the Contact Centre staff of big companies are empowered to make decisions and where the decision to be made is above their pay grade that the situation be referred to their managers. Do these companies really believe in customer service or do they believe in inconveniencing the customer so much that they just pay off to get them off their backs?
If I had the power, I will make sure that the Credit Reference Agencies can take out any item on your Credit Report in real time once there is a dispute with a provider. Of course they can then add the item later once the dispute is resolved in the provider's favour.
If I had the resources, I will institute a class action suit against all energy providers to determine if there is a possibility of winning massive payouts for people they have treated in the same way. My gut feelings tells me this is a lucrative business avenue for these companies. Also I will tear up the whole of their complaint resolution process and procedures and take their staff on a massive retraining programme.
Finally, I am still thinking of my next steps. I will certainly be contacting OFGEM on this matter and If I don't receive a reasonable and favourable outcome, I shall be contacting the responsible minister for Energy Companies and my MP and will genuinely love to turn this into a Media issue.
To think some people in less developed countries, hold the UK and Europe out as ideals to be emulated when you talk about competence and customer service. I have been cured of that delusion.
Sunday, 17 May 2015
Sunday, 10 May 2015
Thierry Henry - did you engage brain before opening mouth
I am an Arsenal fan first and foremost and I am a firm believer in the 'player go player come' philosophy. My allegiances are to the club and not to any individual.
I know Thierry Henry is held in very high esteem by the Arsenal fan base. He is a legend, he was a legend as a player. The statute outside the Emirates is evidence of this.
I share in the adulation of him and bask in his achievements for the club BUT it is looking like Thierry Henry the pundit will never measure up to Thierry Henry the player.
I was very upset when he came out with his recent comments about Olivier Giroud. What was he smoking or drinking? Did he fall into the proverbial trap of opening mouth before engaging brain? I know many including Wenger have responded to his bizarre comments about Giroud with stats and they have recognised the pressure Pundit Henry was under to deliver controversial comments and clickbait articles. Good for him if that is the path he wants to toe.
What amazes me is the risk he was taking with those comments.
1) Having a pop at your country's number 1 striker
2) Having a go at your supposedly favourite club's striker
3) Risking your relationship with Wenger (Arsene's capacity to bear grudges I hear is legendary)
4) Risking a backlash from the Arsenal fan base
5) Risking your relationship with the players (attack against one is an attack against all)
What kind of madness makes a man risk everything he has achieved for a fledging punditry career? I understand his Sky contract was a massive one financially but the man is not short of a few bob is he?
Constructive criticism is good. Bizarre ones NOT AT ALL. I accept Arsenal is yet to win the league and Henry might eventually be proved right if Arsenal don't win the league with Oivier but we won't know this until either Olivier retires or leaves Arsenal. Except Thierry has a crystal ball he won't know too. Yes he can give his opinion but his opinion should be based on something like stats which for now is at variance with the opinion he has expressed on Giroud. They might be based on intuition which effectively is hot air. Or is this another form of Gooner baiting seeing as it appears he has made those comments to generate a response. Maybe Thierry Henry is the new Adrian Durham. If that is what he aspires to, he should come out clearly and not pretend he is this great Arsenal luvvie while pissing into the tent.
Just a couple of reminders about some of Mr Henry's views
1) He wanted Arsenal to re - sign Alex Song. The tweet of that has mysteriously disappeared from his twitter timeline. We can all see how Alex is about to win the FOTY award. Non?
2) The illogical criticism of Chicharito for not celebrating with Ronaldo. Where on earth did that come from? I don't remember Monsieur Henry celebrating much with Jose Antonio Reyes in their playing days at Arsenal. What happened then Thierry? Did you just develop these new set of values or did the Sky Bundle / Package deal happen?
A final word to and on Thierry. Maybe if you had played out of your skin and single handedly won Arsenal the Champions League in Paris that night in 2006 or you had played to the best of your ability and won Arsenal back to back Premier League titles or even emulated some crocked club in the North West by winning Arsenal a treble, the club and his manager won't be the subject of some of ridicule from no nothing pundits.
In my opinion, SKY SPORTS CAN NEVER WIN THE PUNDITRY TITLE WITH A PUNDIT LIKE THIERRY HENRY. THEY NEED A TOP TOP PUNDIT
I know Thierry Henry is held in very high esteem by the Arsenal fan base. He is a legend, he was a legend as a player. The statute outside the Emirates is evidence of this.
I share in the adulation of him and bask in his achievements for the club BUT it is looking like Thierry Henry the pundit will never measure up to Thierry Henry the player.
I was very upset when he came out with his recent comments about Olivier Giroud. What was he smoking or drinking? Did he fall into the proverbial trap of opening mouth before engaging brain? I know many including Wenger have responded to his bizarre comments about Giroud with stats and they have recognised the pressure Pundit Henry was under to deliver controversial comments and clickbait articles. Good for him if that is the path he wants to toe.
What amazes me is the risk he was taking with those comments.
1) Having a pop at your country's number 1 striker
2) Having a go at your supposedly favourite club's striker
3) Risking your relationship with Wenger (Arsene's capacity to bear grudges I hear is legendary)
4) Risking a backlash from the Arsenal fan base
5) Risking your relationship with the players (attack against one is an attack against all)
What kind of madness makes a man risk everything he has achieved for a fledging punditry career? I understand his Sky contract was a massive one financially but the man is not short of a few bob is he?
Constructive criticism is good. Bizarre ones NOT AT ALL. I accept Arsenal is yet to win the league and Henry might eventually be proved right if Arsenal don't win the league with Oivier but we won't know this until either Olivier retires or leaves Arsenal. Except Thierry has a crystal ball he won't know too. Yes he can give his opinion but his opinion should be based on something like stats which for now is at variance with the opinion he has expressed on Giroud. They might be based on intuition which effectively is hot air. Or is this another form of Gooner baiting seeing as it appears he has made those comments to generate a response. Maybe Thierry Henry is the new Adrian Durham. If that is what he aspires to, he should come out clearly and not pretend he is this great Arsenal luvvie while pissing into the tent.
Just a couple of reminders about some of Mr Henry's views
1) He wanted Arsenal to re - sign Alex Song. The tweet of that has mysteriously disappeared from his twitter timeline. We can all see how Alex is about to win the FOTY award. Non?
2) The illogical criticism of Chicharito for not celebrating with Ronaldo. Where on earth did that come from? I don't remember Monsieur Henry celebrating much with Jose Antonio Reyes in their playing days at Arsenal. What happened then Thierry? Did you just develop these new set of values or did the Sky Bundle / Package deal happen?
A final word to and on Thierry. Maybe if you had played out of your skin and single handedly won Arsenal the Champions League in Paris that night in 2006 or you had played to the best of your ability and won Arsenal back to back Premier League titles or even emulated some crocked club in the North West by winning Arsenal a treble, the club and his manager won't be the subject of some of ridicule from no nothing pundits.
In my opinion, SKY SPORTS CAN NEVER WIN THE PUNDITRY TITLE WITH A PUNDIT LIKE THIERRY HENRY. THEY NEED A TOP TOP PUNDIT
Saturday, 9 May 2015
The UK General Elections
Elections concluded. Results out. Fallout very apparent.
Although I don't vote, the result of the election has left me feeling bruised as I have some sympathies for the Labour party.
My life as a politically conscious adult coincided with the Margaret Thatcher years. As I was raised by a single mother, the fact that a lady won the election for the position of Prime Minister resonated with me. Her election heralded a golden age of what women could accomplish. Although to be fair this cynical grown up me now thinks that Thatcher's accomplishment as a female Prime Minister was been oversold. For God's sake Indira Gandhi was a Prime Minister of India in 1966 a full 13 years before Thatcher.
Jeffery Archer's book "First Amongst Equal" developed my interest in UK parliamentary politics while The Blair years further endeared me and many others the world over to life in the UK. There were lots of positives about the UK during the Blair years - economy was 'booming' and it was to all intents and purposes, a very open and tolerant society. There was nothing not to like about the UK and the party in power.
It all started to unravel for Labour as it usually does for any party that stays long enough in power. The turning point appears to be the Iraq War. The unprecedented immigration and the muzzling of debate over this issue and the effects of the global financial crisis appear to be final nails in Labour's political coffin. I think they are still suffering the after effect even till today.
At the 2010 General Election, Gordon Brown suffered the backlash of these 'crimes'. Some might say the pummelling Labour received for supposedly 'emptying' the country's coffers was well deserved as he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer throughout the Blair years and was largely responsible for that government's economic policies including its regulation of financial services industry. In addition to this deficiency, Gordon Brown suffered from the fact that he wasn't easy on the eye and his opponent had more charisma. This is something Ed Miliband has also suffered from. An unfortunate sad reflection of today's society - 'packaging is more important than substance'.
I remember reading some informed commentary following the start of David Cameron's Prime Ministership. The writer forecasted that the party in government after 2010 will lose the next election as that government will have to supervise the belt tightening to follow. The writer was drawing from history which suggests that the parties that win election after very tough economic upheavals rarely win the next elections due to voters anger and backlash.
David Cameron's election win in the 2015 elections has come to me as something of a surprise. People have ignored the belt tightening, the suicides by people disadvantaged by the bedroom tax, the questionable moral and economic choices that appears to have been made. It would appear that the Liberal Democrats rather than the Conservatives have carried the can for the last 5 years. I struggle to understand why. Apart from the increase in university tuition fees, I don't see what the Lib Dems have done wrong.
Could it be that Liberal Democrat voters now feel that their are no ideological differences between their party and the Conservatives? Could it be that voters only wanted to vote for a party that could form a government and genuinely wanted nothing to do with a coalition government? I don't have the answers but from a personal angle, I think this is proper karma for Nick Clegg. From all I have read, he 'dicked' Gordon Brown and Labour about in 2010 and was seduced by the allure of power and is deservedly paying the price. Decisions & responsibilities - c'est la vie
I don't have answers for Labour's poor performance either. But if you review this page on the BBC website you will see that the Labour party had a net loss of 26 seats. Minus the 40 seats loss to the SNP, Labour had a net gain of 14 seats. If you strip out Scotland, Ed Miliband performed better than Gordon Brown. If you add the 40 seats lost in Scotland, Labour would still have 59 seats less than the Conservatives and would have been the 2nd largest party in Westminster. For me the failure of Labour as some have identified is the inability to persuade non core Labour voters, floating voters, wavering Conservative voters and disillusioned Liberal Democrats voters to choose the Labour Party at the polls.
Also, I do not think the 331 seats won by the Conservative is a ringing endorsement from the electorate either. Their election strategy has left the SNP spoiling for a fight that might eventually lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom. They have created a generation of Liberal Democrats that are forever unlikely to do the Conservatives any favour and they will be facing a Labour party that potentially couldn't fall any further if it tried.
In addition to these political party issues, I am of the opinion that the Conservatives face many challenging policy issues of their own making. One of these is Europe and the promised referendum. The decision to promise a referendum appears deeply cynical and was done only to win votes. As the election approached, I understand that businesses and the City did not panic because they believed there will be a hung parliament and the government will be formed by a coalition of parties and this will make a referendum on Europe unlikely. With a Conservative Majority, David Cameron cannot duck out of a referendum. Any attempt to water down the referendum or avoid it a second time will make his position untenable and if he goes ahead, the uncertainty is likely to severely impact his government as Corporate UK considers the threat of this country's exit from Europe as the biggest risk they face.
Another one the challenging policy issue is the promised £12b cut in the welfare budget. If the evidence of the past 5 years is to be believed, the effect of the cut will be felt more by the vulnerable. A few lies have been peddled regarding the welfare budget. Some of these will become evident in the next 5 years. If you want to learn more about welfare spending yourself, please find the time to read this report . Some of these lies soon become apparent and as a result, I struggle with the Conservative Party approach that they will rather balance the country's finances on the back of poor and vulnerable people because these ones don't vote for them. The issue of reforming welfare IS NOT about economics or competent financial management. This is about a deeply revolting philosophy. Over 50% of the welfare budget is spent on pensions, the next biggest chunk is spent on people in work, the percentage of the welfare budget that is supposedly abused by the work - shy and benefit fraudsters is minuscule.
The elections are over. The outcome is unprecedented in the sense that 3 party leaders resigned in the aftermath of the elections. The people have had their say. Democracy has won but please don't moan about your choices in the next 5 years. I do not see it ending well. I do not agree with the lies that have been told that there is only one way to competently manage the economy. I do not agree with the demonising of the poor and the demonising of the compassionate. I do not share the people's support for leaders who have contempt for the poor and vulnerable.
Although I don't vote, the result of the election has left me feeling bruised as I have some sympathies for the Labour party.
My life as a politically conscious adult coincided with the Margaret Thatcher years. As I was raised by a single mother, the fact that a lady won the election for the position of Prime Minister resonated with me. Her election heralded a golden age of what women could accomplish. Although to be fair this cynical grown up me now thinks that Thatcher's accomplishment as a female Prime Minister was been oversold. For God's sake Indira Gandhi was a Prime Minister of India in 1966 a full 13 years before Thatcher.
Jeffery Archer's book "First Amongst Equal" developed my interest in UK parliamentary politics while The Blair years further endeared me and many others the world over to life in the UK. There were lots of positives about the UK during the Blair years - economy was 'booming' and it was to all intents and purposes, a very open and tolerant society. There was nothing not to like about the UK and the party in power.
It all started to unravel for Labour as it usually does for any party that stays long enough in power. The turning point appears to be the Iraq War. The unprecedented immigration and the muzzling of debate over this issue and the effects of the global financial crisis appear to be final nails in Labour's political coffin. I think they are still suffering the after effect even till today.
At the 2010 General Election, Gordon Brown suffered the backlash of these 'crimes'. Some might say the pummelling Labour received for supposedly 'emptying' the country's coffers was well deserved as he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer throughout the Blair years and was largely responsible for that government's economic policies including its regulation of financial services industry. In addition to this deficiency, Gordon Brown suffered from the fact that he wasn't easy on the eye and his opponent had more charisma. This is something Ed Miliband has also suffered from. An unfortunate sad reflection of today's society - 'packaging is more important than substance'.
I remember reading some informed commentary following the start of David Cameron's Prime Ministership. The writer forecasted that the party in government after 2010 will lose the next election as that government will have to supervise the belt tightening to follow. The writer was drawing from history which suggests that the parties that win election after very tough economic upheavals rarely win the next elections due to voters anger and backlash.
David Cameron's election win in the 2015 elections has come to me as something of a surprise. People have ignored the belt tightening, the suicides by people disadvantaged by the bedroom tax, the questionable moral and economic choices that appears to have been made. It would appear that the Liberal Democrats rather than the Conservatives have carried the can for the last 5 years. I struggle to understand why. Apart from the increase in university tuition fees, I don't see what the Lib Dems have done wrong.
Could it be that Liberal Democrat voters now feel that their are no ideological differences between their party and the Conservatives? Could it be that voters only wanted to vote for a party that could form a government and genuinely wanted nothing to do with a coalition government? I don't have the answers but from a personal angle, I think this is proper karma for Nick Clegg. From all I have read, he 'dicked' Gordon Brown and Labour about in 2010 and was seduced by the allure of power and is deservedly paying the price. Decisions & responsibilities - c'est la vie
I don't have answers for Labour's poor performance either. But if you review this page on the BBC website you will see that the Labour party had a net loss of 26 seats. Minus the 40 seats loss to the SNP, Labour had a net gain of 14 seats. If you strip out Scotland, Ed Miliband performed better than Gordon Brown. If you add the 40 seats lost in Scotland, Labour would still have 59 seats less than the Conservatives and would have been the 2nd largest party in Westminster. For me the failure of Labour as some have identified is the inability to persuade non core Labour voters, floating voters, wavering Conservative voters and disillusioned Liberal Democrats voters to choose the Labour Party at the polls.
Also, I do not think the 331 seats won by the Conservative is a ringing endorsement from the electorate either. Their election strategy has left the SNP spoiling for a fight that might eventually lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom. They have created a generation of Liberal Democrats that are forever unlikely to do the Conservatives any favour and they will be facing a Labour party that potentially couldn't fall any further if it tried.
In addition to these political party issues, I am of the opinion that the Conservatives face many challenging policy issues of their own making. One of these is Europe and the promised referendum. The decision to promise a referendum appears deeply cynical and was done only to win votes. As the election approached, I understand that businesses and the City did not panic because they believed there will be a hung parliament and the government will be formed by a coalition of parties and this will make a referendum on Europe unlikely. With a Conservative Majority, David Cameron cannot duck out of a referendum. Any attempt to water down the referendum or avoid it a second time will make his position untenable and if he goes ahead, the uncertainty is likely to severely impact his government as Corporate UK considers the threat of this country's exit from Europe as the biggest risk they face.
Another one the challenging policy issue is the promised £12b cut in the welfare budget. If the evidence of the past 5 years is to be believed, the effect of the cut will be felt more by the vulnerable. A few lies have been peddled regarding the welfare budget. Some of these will become evident in the next 5 years. If you want to learn more about welfare spending yourself, please find the time to read this report . Some of these lies soon become apparent and as a result, I struggle with the Conservative Party approach that they will rather balance the country's finances on the back of poor and vulnerable people because these ones don't vote for them. The issue of reforming welfare IS NOT about economics or competent financial management. This is about a deeply revolting philosophy. Over 50% of the welfare budget is spent on pensions, the next biggest chunk is spent on people in work, the percentage of the welfare budget that is supposedly abused by the work - shy and benefit fraudsters is minuscule.
The elections are over. The outcome is unprecedented in the sense that 3 party leaders resigned in the aftermath of the elections. The people have had their say. Democracy has won but please don't moan about your choices in the next 5 years. I do not see it ending well. I do not agree with the lies that have been told that there is only one way to competently manage the economy. I do not agree with the demonising of the poor and the demonising of the compassionate. I do not share the people's support for leaders who have contempt for the poor and vulnerable.
Wednesday, 6 May 2015
Football Match Tickets in the UK
The issue of expensive football tickets has
been in the news for a few weeks. While I believe it is a very
important subject worthy of debate I however despair at some of the comments by football pundits. Some of their pronouncement can be easily classified in the 'WTF' category.
Two weeks ago, this issue was resurrected by the
decision of some Liverpool fans to boycott their match against Hull because the latter had classified that match as a 'top class' match and was charging £50. This
was especially infuriating to Liverpool fans as Hull had charged £16 for their game versus Burnley.
Just wondering if like most people the Liverpool fans realised their team might lose against Hull and decided to
develop a smoke screen to block the loss off the front pages of newspapers the next day.
I wonder why Liverpool FC fans want their club to be regarded as a
‘big’ club when compare themselves to Burnley FC. Surely you can't be that big.
Why is it so difficult to get the simple and basic principle that watching Liverpool play is likely to be more entertaining
that watching paint dry (sorry I meant Burnley play)?
Why is it challenging to understand that
when Liverpool are in town, the demand for tickets will be higher? Like any
student of Adam Smith in High School will tell you, when the supply (stadium capacity)
is limited or fixed and the demand (fans desire or request for tickets) is higher
than the supply, something will have to give. Usually it is the price that gives or chaos reigns i.e some
unscrupulous people in an unregulated game sell more tickets than seats.
If for any reason, you didn’t do economics in High School,
try this analogy. If there is only one fine girl in town and more than one guy
wants her, there will be a beauty parade of the guys and invariably the more
endowed one wins.
So Liverpool FC fans and all other big club
fans that complains about the cost of football tickets. Please stop and think.
WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THE SUCCESS OF YOUR CLUB OR THE LOWER PRICES YOUR
STRUGGLING COMPETITORS PAY?
Also on the issue of ticket prices, a
review of the EPL clubs finances for the 2013/14 season shows that none of the clubs rely on gate takings as their primary source of income.
In fact a lot of them can allow free entry and still make a tidy profit. TV
money is the big golden hen. The huge money from TV is the reason why football club owners are increasingly indifferent to the cries of fans about the cost of football tickets. Why should they care if they are guaranteed £100m per season if no fan turns up? As businesses I don’t blame club owners. They are not in the business of giving it away.
Although what many club owners and indeed many fans fail to realise is that the TV money is also from fans therefore the power to
hurt football clubs and get them to do something about ticket prices ultimately rest with
fans.
SKY and BT and all the other
broadcasting channels need fans in the stadium to sell football matches on TV as the absence
of fans takes away one of the key props (i.e the atmosphere) for SKY & BT. These companies fund the billion pound payout to the EPL through the football
packages you and I purchase.
If fans want to effect change they can. Here is how:
- All season ticket holders to
renew their season tickets as usual especially if it is at a club with a long
waiting list. You still love your club and you don’t want to lose your season
ticket place. However for the first 5 home match of the season, STAY AWAY. Same applies to Away Travel Scheme members. Hopefully
fans do these in massive numbers to ensure the clubs and broadcasters notice. I
know this will cost you £250 roughly but remember you are trying to effect
CHANGE. It wont come cheap.
- All non season ticket holders
should not buy a ticket for the first 5 matches as well. For these ones, there is no financial loss. They will only miss the joy of supporting their club. Yes a very big price to pay but remember CHANGE IS NOT CHEAP
- All subscribers to SKY and BT
Sports should not renew their sports / football bundle for the first 2 months
of the football season. You actually lose nothing financially by doing. Yes you miss the adrenaline and joy you feel when you are watching your club play. But if your actions can help ensure that club owners sit up and listen to fans, then you would have achieved a significant moral victory and the desired outcome.
- Fans should not buy any item from
the Club shops or on line during the same period
If fans can do all of the above, the clubs and their owners will panic and I foresee the Premier League Management
suddenly directing the clubs to do something about ticket prices. Only if fans can take this action in sufficient numbers.
It is not easy, nothing good comes easy. It
will not be achieved in one day buy if we genuinely believe we can effect
change then lets take the power back, it is in our own hands. We fund these
billion pound pay out. Lets demand value for our money through reduced ticket prices.
Tuesday, 28 April 2015
Migrants perishing in their attempt to come to Western Europe - the more things change the more they remain the same
The World has suddenly woken up to the disaster of migrants trying to cross over in little more than canoes from shores of Africa to Western Europe. Many have died and continue to die. I have just read another article about 14 migrants who lost their lives on the train tracks in Macedonia as they tried to cross into Western Europe by land.
The sheer number of people dying is sickening. Young, babies, women, children and men. Most it would appear desperately running away from violent persecution and poverty. Unfortunately this is not a new thing. If you ever find the time please read this academic work here. If it doesn't break your heart, you are made of stone.
In modern times, people have travelled through the Sahara desert, crossing borders, enduring violence and natural disasters to get to the Libyan coast in their desire to enter Western Europe. I have read the sad stories of many trying to travel by road from West Africa to the African coast in the hope of ending in Europe.
As it has been pointed out by Ed Miliband and others last week, the overthrow of Gaddafi has made the problem worse. Libya now appears to be a no mans land where anything goes. This has encouraged and emboldened the traffickers. Many more are dying because of the decision of the EU countries to cut back on Sea & Rescue patrols.
It is sad that the lessons of Iraq is lost on David Cameron and his fellow leaders. However what is sadder is the fact having failed to learn those lessons, they are then failing to deal with the consequences of their failure.
Is there a solution, I'm not sure there is one. Nothing can immediately change the violence and poverty the migrants are running away from. How much of the violence is caused by the Western countries is debatable but it is definitely a contributory factor.
However my one great suggestion which is also a solution to the issue of asylum seekers in Europe is for European countries (individually or jointly) to create a safe haven somewhere outside of Europe, a pseudo refugee 'town' where people genuinely fleeing violence can be protected and their genuine asylum claim assessed. If they are found deserving, they can then be helped to settle in the appropriate country either in line with EU guidelines or the asylum seekers preferences (possible family ties or language preferences). In my opinion, this will ensure that the economic migrants focus their efforts on genuine routes to legal residency or divert their attention to more welcoming countries. This will only work however if Europe can protect its borders. I have however not seen anything to suggest it can.
Finally, I think back to my teenage years and the jokes I used to share with my friends during the American Visa Lottery season. How we used to joke that if a ship turned up at the Port bound for America or Europe, that we will be the first to board the ship. How we used to jest.
Fast forward to 20years and how ironic that these migrants are doing the same thing. Paying serious money and battling hard to board these ships bound for the 'utopialand' of the West. Sadly unlike our ancestors during the slave trade. Those proud ones ran in the opposite direction. They were sold down the river by their brothers. They fought hard not to be taken on the ships bound for Europe and America. But today, we willingly board the same ships. Enduring worse indignity. Shame really.
And I complain about slave trade and racism. Maybe I should stop. Maybe I should shed a tear for my brothers and sisters and their kids hoping for something better in Europe but end up drowning in the unmarked grave that is the Mediterranean Ocean.
Shame on us
The sheer number of people dying is sickening. Young, babies, women, children and men. Most it would appear desperately running away from violent persecution and poverty. Unfortunately this is not a new thing. If you ever find the time please read this academic work here. If it doesn't break your heart, you are made of stone.
In modern times, people have travelled through the Sahara desert, crossing borders, enduring violence and natural disasters to get to the Libyan coast in their desire to enter Western Europe. I have read the sad stories of many trying to travel by road from West Africa to the African coast in the hope of ending in Europe.
As it has been pointed out by Ed Miliband and others last week, the overthrow of Gaddafi has made the problem worse. Libya now appears to be a no mans land where anything goes. This has encouraged and emboldened the traffickers. Many more are dying because of the decision of the EU countries to cut back on Sea & Rescue patrols.
It is sad that the lessons of Iraq is lost on David Cameron and his fellow leaders. However what is sadder is the fact having failed to learn those lessons, they are then failing to deal with the consequences of their failure.
Is there a solution, I'm not sure there is one. Nothing can immediately change the violence and poverty the migrants are running away from. How much of the violence is caused by the Western countries is debatable but it is definitely a contributory factor.
However my one great suggestion which is also a solution to the issue of asylum seekers in Europe is for European countries (individually or jointly) to create a safe haven somewhere outside of Europe, a pseudo refugee 'town' where people genuinely fleeing violence can be protected and their genuine asylum claim assessed. If they are found deserving, they can then be helped to settle in the appropriate country either in line with EU guidelines or the asylum seekers preferences (possible family ties or language preferences). In my opinion, this will ensure that the economic migrants focus their efforts on genuine routes to legal residency or divert their attention to more welcoming countries. This will only work however if Europe can protect its borders. I have however not seen anything to suggest it can.
Finally, I think back to my teenage years and the jokes I used to share with my friends during the American Visa Lottery season. How we used to joke that if a ship turned up at the Port bound for America or Europe, that we will be the first to board the ship. How we used to jest.
Fast forward to 20years and how ironic that these migrants are doing the same thing. Paying serious money and battling hard to board these ships bound for the 'utopialand' of the West. Sadly unlike our ancestors during the slave trade. Those proud ones ran in the opposite direction. They were sold down the river by their brothers. They fought hard not to be taken on the ships bound for Europe and America. But today, we willingly board the same ships. Enduring worse indignity. Shame really.
And I complain about slave trade and racism. Maybe I should stop. Maybe I should shed a tear for my brothers and sisters and their kids hoping for something better in Europe but end up drowning in the unmarked grave that is the Mediterranean Ocean.
Shame on us
Sunday, 26 April 2015
Black Managers in Football - there is a deeper underlying issue
Recent media interviews by Les Ferdinand & Chris Ramsey (Director & Manager of QPR respectively), John Barnes (Ex England & Liverpool Legend, Former Manager of Tranmere & Celtic) have resurrected the issue of the limited numbers of black and ethnic minority managers in English football.
Some have proffered the so called Rooney Rule (an initiative in American NFL) as a fix to address this issue. Gordon Taylor Chief Executive of the PFA came out in support of this initiative in 2011. Since then, the FA Chairman, Greg Dyke and many others have had their say, adding different and relevant slant to this issue. Some think there is no point in introducing the Rooney Rule whilst others believe a different solution should be adopted.
However, three weeks ago, John Barnes made a very pertinent comment in my opinion and added a his own dimension. His take was that "Black Managers struggle to find jobs after been sacked". I have classified the reaction (mostly from social media and the comments section on the BBC website) to John Barnes' comments as follows:
1) "He was a 'shit' manager anyway that is why he was fired and has never been re - hired"
2) "Why are they pulling the race card again"
3) "Surely if a Black Manager is good, a club owner / or board will hire him as their manager irrespective of his prior record"
I marvel at these responses as I am generally of the opinion that John Barnes is right and there is something wrong with the extremely low number of Black and Ethnic Minority managers in English Football. It might be that a lot of club owners don't feel comfortable with this demography. I must acknowledge and praise the owner of Brighton Football Club and Tony Fernandes of QPR for appointing Chris Hughton and Chris Ramsey as managers. However, we are all aware that both roles are similar to 'hospital passes' in a game of football. Something of a poisoned chalice. Jobs that had been offered to other non ethnic managers who made a hash of those jobs and then passed to both Messrs Hughton & Ramsey to turn around. Mustn't complain though.
As at three weeks ago, there were six managers from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds employed by English football's 92 league clubs: Ramsey and Hughton. Chris Powell at Huddersfield, Fabio Liverani, the Leyton Orient boss, Keith Curle of Carlisle and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink doing a fantastic job at Burton.
Jimmy has gained promotion to League One at the first time of asking with Burton. I am intrigued that he had to start his managerial career as a League Two manager and wonder if the colour of his skin has anything to do with it. This was a player who played at the top of the EPL for many seasons and had a distinguished career across three of Europe's top leagues. We have seen other people without the same CV as Jimmy start at a higher level of the game. Was that about ability or is there is a 'below the surface' issue that no one dares speak about? Take a look at the list of managers in the Championship and League One and tell me why Jimmy shouldn't have been appointed ahead of at least 50% of the people on that list.
It appears Fabio was recruited as a result of the Italian connection and this might actually be the way forward. Are Black and Ethnic Managers building the right network that will help them access these managerial jobs they desire?
Chris Powell has a reputation as a top manager of a League One side but he was only offered the Huddersfield job on a rolling contract basis. Despite his reputation, he was out of a job for a while after been sacked as Charlton manager. You only need to read Keith Curle's career history to appreciate some of the indignities he has had to suffer. Put through what a Court of law labelled "a sham of a disciplinary process" by a club he once managed. Keith was out of the game for over a year prior to his appointment at Carlisle United.
So when the UK population is 14% Black and ethnic minorities and 25% of players are from the same demography, how come there are only 6.5% of them as managers. I did some number crunching for a group of friends recently and the number of black and ethnic minority people with the UEFA pro licence and UEFA B licence is higher than 14%. This is just in case you are tempted to think that Black and Ethnic Managers are not qualified for managerial roles or are too brain lazy to take or pass their coaching badges as some might be tempted to think.
Clearly there is an issue to address but whether it will be addressed is another issue. It is interesting to note that Large Corporations in the UK following a nudge from the government and politicians have addressed a similar issue - that of the imbalanced representation of females on the Board FTSE100 companies. The numbers have improved significantly. The focus is now on the under - representation of black and ethnic minority people on the same board. Hopefully this too should be addressed during the next parliament. If FTSE100 companies are willing to address these issues, what is the excuse of football clubs and their owners? Is there excuse something that dare not say its name?
For me though, a sure-fire solution is for rich black and ethnic minority people to invest in football clubs. If you are on the board, people like you will get the opportunity to interview for these roles and that is the essence of the Rooney Rule and what managerial candidates want. The opportunity to be interviewed. The opportunity to set their stall out and be judged accordingly.
Before I finish, I will go back to John Barnes comments - "Black Managers struggle to find jobs after been sacked". I will now list the names of a few managers still in work and invite you to make your own conclusions:
1) Sam Alladyce's last two jobs before West Ham were disasters. He still got the West Ham gig. He is a Premier League Manager today. The Davids and Lady Brady at West Ham gave him a chance based (in my opinion) on the work he did with Bolton. Yes he has justified that faith as West Ham are now part of the Premier League furniture and are looking to progress to greater things. But still he failed at Newcastle & Blackburn. He was fired at both clubs but he is still a Premier League Manager today.
2) Brendan Rodgers has failed at a few clubs. He has won nothing in his career and by passing on the opportunity to win the league last year on the alter of some silly yet to be established principle, he might never win anything again. Yet Brendan is the manager of Liverpool. The one time biggest club in the world. Let that sink in.
3) Steve Bruce. Great player. But please look at the history of Steve's managerial career. Steve has managed 7 clubs in 16 years. He has won nowt in any of these clubs and has led a few clubs into relegation. He is currently struggling at Hull with his club in danger of relegation. But guess what Steve is one of the favourites for the Newcastle job and any other job going in the North of England. Is it Steve's results that makes him this attractive to club owners? Waiting for someone to defend this.
You want more examples, look at the records of most managers in the Championship and the lower leagues. They are allowed to fail, they are allowed to be shite, cool their heels a bit and stroll back into a job big or small. But similar managers like John Barnes, Paul Ince are not allowed to be shite. They are not allowed to fail. No its not racism some will say. Call it whatever you like, I know what I would call it.
My conclusion, THERE IS A BIG ISSUE THAT NEEDS ADDRESSING
Some have proffered the so called Rooney Rule (an initiative in American NFL) as a fix to address this issue. Gordon Taylor Chief Executive of the PFA came out in support of this initiative in 2011. Since then, the FA Chairman, Greg Dyke and many others have had their say, adding different and relevant slant to this issue. Some think there is no point in introducing the Rooney Rule whilst others believe a different solution should be adopted.
However, three weeks ago, John Barnes made a very pertinent comment in my opinion and added a his own dimension. His take was that "Black Managers struggle to find jobs after been sacked". I have classified the reaction (mostly from social media and the comments section on the BBC website) to John Barnes' comments as follows:
1) "He was a 'shit' manager anyway that is why he was fired and has never been re - hired"
2) "Why are they pulling the race card again"
3) "Surely if a Black Manager is good, a club owner / or board will hire him as their manager irrespective of his prior record"
I marvel at these responses as I am generally of the opinion that John Barnes is right and there is something wrong with the extremely low number of Black and Ethnic Minority managers in English Football. It might be that a lot of club owners don't feel comfortable with this demography. I must acknowledge and praise the owner of Brighton Football Club and Tony Fernandes of QPR for appointing Chris Hughton and Chris Ramsey as managers. However, we are all aware that both roles are similar to 'hospital passes' in a game of football. Something of a poisoned chalice. Jobs that had been offered to other non ethnic managers who made a hash of those jobs and then passed to both Messrs Hughton & Ramsey to turn around. Mustn't complain though.
As at three weeks ago, there were six managers from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds employed by English football's 92 league clubs: Ramsey and Hughton. Chris Powell at Huddersfield, Fabio Liverani, the Leyton Orient boss, Keith Curle of Carlisle and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink doing a fantastic job at Burton.
Jimmy has gained promotion to League One at the first time of asking with Burton. I am intrigued that he had to start his managerial career as a League Two manager and wonder if the colour of his skin has anything to do with it. This was a player who played at the top of the EPL for many seasons and had a distinguished career across three of Europe's top leagues. We have seen other people without the same CV as Jimmy start at a higher level of the game. Was that about ability or is there is a 'below the surface' issue that no one dares speak about? Take a look at the list of managers in the Championship and League One and tell me why Jimmy shouldn't have been appointed ahead of at least 50% of the people on that list.
It appears Fabio was recruited as a result of the Italian connection and this might actually be the way forward. Are Black and Ethnic Managers building the right network that will help them access these managerial jobs they desire?
Chris Powell has a reputation as a top manager of a League One side but he was only offered the Huddersfield job on a rolling contract basis. Despite his reputation, he was out of a job for a while after been sacked as Charlton manager. You only need to read Keith Curle's career history to appreciate some of the indignities he has had to suffer. Put through what a Court of law labelled "a sham of a disciplinary process" by a club he once managed. Keith was out of the game for over a year prior to his appointment at Carlisle United.
So when the UK population is 14% Black and ethnic minorities and 25% of players are from the same demography, how come there are only 6.5% of them as managers. I did some number crunching for a group of friends recently and the number of black and ethnic minority people with the UEFA pro licence and UEFA B licence is higher than 14%. This is just in case you are tempted to think that Black and Ethnic Managers are not qualified for managerial roles or are too brain lazy to take or pass their coaching badges as some might be tempted to think.
Clearly there is an issue to address but whether it will be addressed is another issue. It is interesting to note that Large Corporations in the UK following a nudge from the government and politicians have addressed a similar issue - that of the imbalanced representation of females on the Board FTSE100 companies. The numbers have improved significantly. The focus is now on the under - representation of black and ethnic minority people on the same board. Hopefully this too should be addressed during the next parliament. If FTSE100 companies are willing to address these issues, what is the excuse of football clubs and their owners? Is there excuse something that dare not say its name?
For me though, a sure-fire solution is for rich black and ethnic minority people to invest in football clubs. If you are on the board, people like you will get the opportunity to interview for these roles and that is the essence of the Rooney Rule and what managerial candidates want. The opportunity to be interviewed. The opportunity to set their stall out and be judged accordingly.
Before I finish, I will go back to John Barnes comments - "Black Managers struggle to find jobs after been sacked". I will now list the names of a few managers still in work and invite you to make your own conclusions:
1) Sam Alladyce's last two jobs before West Ham were disasters. He still got the West Ham gig. He is a Premier League Manager today. The Davids and Lady Brady at West Ham gave him a chance based (in my opinion) on the work he did with Bolton. Yes he has justified that faith as West Ham are now part of the Premier League furniture and are looking to progress to greater things. But still he failed at Newcastle & Blackburn. He was fired at both clubs but he is still a Premier League Manager today.
2) Brendan Rodgers has failed at a few clubs. He has won nothing in his career and by passing on the opportunity to win the league last year on the alter of some silly yet to be established principle, he might never win anything again. Yet Brendan is the manager of Liverpool. The one time biggest club in the world. Let that sink in.
3) Steve Bruce. Great player. But please look at the history of Steve's managerial career. Steve has managed 7 clubs in 16 years. He has won nowt in any of these clubs and has led a few clubs into relegation. He is currently struggling at Hull with his club in danger of relegation. But guess what Steve is one of the favourites for the Newcastle job and any other job going in the North of England. Is it Steve's results that makes him this attractive to club owners? Waiting for someone to defend this.
You want more examples, look at the records of most managers in the Championship and the lower leagues. They are allowed to fail, they are allowed to be shite, cool their heels a bit and stroll back into a job big or small. But similar managers like John Barnes, Paul Ince are not allowed to be shite. They are not allowed to fail. No its not racism some will say. Call it whatever you like, I know what I would call it.
My conclusion, THERE IS A BIG ISSUE THAT NEEDS ADDRESSING
Monday, 6 April 2015
Penny Wise Pound Foolish
I have always been fascinated about the concept of "Policing by Consent". It is a bit like democracy. The rulers rule because we put them their. They might actually do whatever they want once they get their but make no mistake WE PUT THEM THEIR. They sometimes circumvent our wish by making sure that whoever we put their is one of their own for example - Miliband vs. Cameron vs. Clegg - ANY DIFFERENCE? I don't think so.
Back to "Policing by Consent". I tried to explain the concept to a gathering of friends a few years ago. Take the last London riots as an example. You can see how stretched the Police were. Just imagine if all parts of the United Kingdom had simultaneously rioted. The police would have been incapable of restoring order. I several other examples and scenarios but would rather not go overboard on this issue.
I sincerely hope the ruling class and the Police recognise the fact that they only rule and police with our consent. I have noticed a few things in the public space that makes me wonder if the Police and Our Rulers get the point. Two recent examples come to mind:
1) The Adam Johnson Arrest
If the statement released by the Police is anything to go by, it appears Adam Johnson has done something very wrong. In order to arrest him, the Police rock up in his house with 3 squad vehicles. THREE. Potentially these 3 vehicles had a minimum of 6 OFFICERS to arrest ONE MAN. This is understandable if we are talking the secret leader of ISIS or a doomsday cult deep in the innermost part of Durham. No we are talking a 20 something professional footballer. What was he going to do? Resist arrest?
Was this the most cost efficient way of dealing with his arrest? Is this proof that the Police have spare capacity within their ranks since they could spare 6 OFFICERS to arrest ONE individual with no known history of violence.
This is not about anonymity for both rape victims and the accused. I just question how the Police allocate their resources. A trawl through the Internet will reveal many photographs of multiple police officers and patrol cars turning up to situations where one or at most two police officers can deal with. the situation. Who is really responsible for making these decisions? Do they understand the concept of proportionality? Do they understand we are broke as a nation? I don't think so.
2) UK Citizens attempting to emigrate to Syria
In one of my earlier posts, I commented about UK citizens / residents going off to fight for either side of the ISIS war in Syria & Iraq and indeed in other conflict areas around the world. My stance then and now is that these people should not be allowed back into the country under any circumstances.
If Micheal Adebolajo had been prevented from coming back from Kenya / Somalia, Lee Rigby will not have died from his crazed action in Woolwich. Also MI5 and our myriad security agencies would have saved the few bob they spent spying on him and his ilk.
As somewhat outlined above, the reason the Police are able to police effectively is because majority of the public are law abiding. If the flow of people to Syria is a trickle - the odd individual or if people are been kidnapped against their will, the state is justified in taking action. However what is reported in the media suggest that the rate at which people are attempting to go to Syria is turning from a trickle into something of a steady flow. I will question why where are preventing these people from leaving the UK.
Our Leaders, the Police and the security agencies should understand this point - SOME PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF UK LIFE & THEY WANT SOMETHING ELSE. Why are we preventing them? Why are we stopping them from actualising their dream? Why are we effectively reverse kidnapping them?
Please imagine the effects of these voluntary emigration on our collective purse - reduced pressure on GP / A & E / Hospital resources, smaller school classrooms, reduced pressure on social services? Reduced cost for security surveillance on these people etc.
Why are we so stuck on the idea that these people have to be prevented from running away to Syria? What exactly are we afraid of? What is even more annoying is that we bring some of these people back, spend loads of money prosecuting them in the courts of law and even spend a bigger shed load imprisoning them, given them free reign to radicalise more people in prison and allow the warped vicious cycle continue. Whose interest is the government protecting by preventing these people from going to Syria?
While I'm not asking for the government to actively encourage these people in their desire to go to Syria, I am definitely of the opinion that we should not be preventing them. I understand there are potential issues when these people get bored in Syria and decide they want to come back. That however is a different issue. We don't know if they would have sadly passed away before getting bored.
If they do genuinely get bored and want to come back, they need to obtain a travel document and that is entirely at our discretion how we deal with that request. A refusal wouldn't be out of place on my opinion. I would also imagine that their original travel documents are no longer valid once they decide to abandon the way of life here for what is effectively promoting terrorism.
As a country, we should be working with the international community & the United Nations on how international rules can be changed to ensure terrorists and their sympathisers are rendered stateless and we won't have to worry about the bored terrorist sympathisers who decide to come back.
Our leaders complain about the need to cut government spend but their actions and that of other governmental agencies like the police clearly does not support this 'broke' story.
Back to "Policing by Consent". I tried to explain the concept to a gathering of friends a few years ago. Take the last London riots as an example. You can see how stretched the Police were. Just imagine if all parts of the United Kingdom had simultaneously rioted. The police would have been incapable of restoring order. I several other examples and scenarios but would rather not go overboard on this issue.
I sincerely hope the ruling class and the Police recognise the fact that they only rule and police with our consent. I have noticed a few things in the public space that makes me wonder if the Police and Our Rulers get the point. Two recent examples come to mind:
1) The Adam Johnson Arrest
If the statement released by the Police is anything to go by, it appears Adam Johnson has done something very wrong. In order to arrest him, the Police rock up in his house with 3 squad vehicles. THREE. Potentially these 3 vehicles had a minimum of 6 OFFICERS to arrest ONE MAN. This is understandable if we are talking the secret leader of ISIS or a doomsday cult deep in the innermost part of Durham. No we are talking a 20 something professional footballer. What was he going to do? Resist arrest?
Was this the most cost efficient way of dealing with his arrest? Is this proof that the Police have spare capacity within their ranks since they could spare 6 OFFICERS to arrest ONE individual with no known history of violence.
This is not about anonymity for both rape victims and the accused. I just question how the Police allocate their resources. A trawl through the Internet will reveal many photographs of multiple police officers and patrol cars turning up to situations where one or at most two police officers can deal with. the situation. Who is really responsible for making these decisions? Do they understand the concept of proportionality? Do they understand we are broke as a nation? I don't think so.
2) UK Citizens attempting to emigrate to Syria
In one of my earlier posts, I commented about UK citizens / residents going off to fight for either side of the ISIS war in Syria & Iraq and indeed in other conflict areas around the world. My stance then and now is that these people should not be allowed back into the country under any circumstances.
If Micheal Adebolajo had been prevented from coming back from Kenya / Somalia, Lee Rigby will not have died from his crazed action in Woolwich. Also MI5 and our myriad security agencies would have saved the few bob they spent spying on him and his ilk.
As somewhat outlined above, the reason the Police are able to police effectively is because majority of the public are law abiding. If the flow of people to Syria is a trickle - the odd individual or if people are been kidnapped against their will, the state is justified in taking action. However what is reported in the media suggest that the rate at which people are attempting to go to Syria is turning from a trickle into something of a steady flow. I will question why where are preventing these people from leaving the UK.
Our Leaders, the Police and the security agencies should understand this point - SOME PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF UK LIFE & THEY WANT SOMETHING ELSE. Why are we preventing them? Why are we stopping them from actualising their dream? Why are we effectively reverse kidnapping them?
Please imagine the effects of these voluntary emigration on our collective purse - reduced pressure on GP / A & E / Hospital resources, smaller school classrooms, reduced pressure on social services? Reduced cost for security surveillance on these people etc.
Why are we so stuck on the idea that these people have to be prevented from running away to Syria? What exactly are we afraid of? What is even more annoying is that we bring some of these people back, spend loads of money prosecuting them in the courts of law and even spend a bigger shed load imprisoning them, given them free reign to radicalise more people in prison and allow the warped vicious cycle continue. Whose interest is the government protecting by preventing these people from going to Syria?
While I'm not asking for the government to actively encourage these people in their desire to go to Syria, I am definitely of the opinion that we should not be preventing them. I understand there are potential issues when these people get bored in Syria and decide they want to come back. That however is a different issue. We don't know if they would have sadly passed away before getting bored.
If they do genuinely get bored and want to come back, they need to obtain a travel document and that is entirely at our discretion how we deal with that request. A refusal wouldn't be out of place on my opinion. I would also imagine that their original travel documents are no longer valid once they decide to abandon the way of life here for what is effectively promoting terrorism.
As a country, we should be working with the international community & the United Nations on how international rules can be changed to ensure terrorists and their sympathisers are rendered stateless and we won't have to worry about the bored terrorist sympathisers who decide to come back.
Our leaders complain about the need to cut government spend but their actions and that of other governmental agencies like the police clearly does not support this 'broke' story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)