Great Minds

I was reading the 606 web forum about whether or not Villa Park should be renamed and managed to find someone with an identical opinion to mine:

comment by tallpaulj
posted 6 Hours Ago

There is a limit to the sentimentality of a name and I think £100m is far above that limit!

I don't care what they call it, I went to Villa Park last week and I'll still be going there regardless of what they name it because it'll always be Villa Park to me.

Going to see Argyle vs. Birmingham City in a couple of weeks. Tempted to wear my new Villa shirt!

On a completely different note, there was one other issue yesterday that I neglected to mention:

David March's 9 month suspended sentance - The bit I found most disturbing about this was that the BBC (In a bid to offer a balanced report) interviewed a disabled woman from a political lobby group.
She was arguing that verdicts like this would make disabled people feel like more of a burden to their families and more of them would kill themselves as a result.
I'm no medical expert but even I can tell the difference (given a doctor's testimony in court) between someone who has an incurable degenerative disease and someone that has a permenant disability.
If someone is unfortunate enough to have MS then they should have the right to die (if they wish) when they've reached a point where they feel life isn't worth living anymore.

In a nutshell

A lot has happened in the last few weeks since I blogged so I thought I'd quickly sum up my opinions on the big issues:

Full-face veils - In my old job I used to cycle to work at 5am. During the winter it would be extremely cold so I would wear a ski mask to keep the chilling air off my face. People I would pass would look at me like I was a criminal.
Quite simply it is human nature to assume that if you can't see someones face, they must have something to hide / be up to no good. Why else do people find teenagers with their hoodies up so intimidating? It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with individual's obstinance. Especially when religion doesn't seem to apply at the job interview.

Paul Hunter RIP - What I found most upsetting on the day the news broke of Paul Hunters death was that Sky Sports News were too busy talking about press conferences held by Steve McClaren and John Terry to bother telling anyone that a non-football playing sportsman had died at a tragically young age. They couldn't shut up about the Alcoholic, wife-beating former-footballer from ulster that died the year before.

Aston Villa - Went to see them play against Spurs and was somewhat disappointed to see my favourite player not only miss a penalty but then head an own goal right in front of me. Hope he scores some goals on Saturday just to get it out of his system. Cracking goal by Barry though, ever more justification for his inclusion in the next England squad.

Terror Threat - Can't believe the BBC has given so much publicity to something which seems to me to be nothing short of propaganda designed to justify the 'special measures' needed to curb the 'threat'.
"According to our correspondent, each cell works on separate, different plots, with masterminds controlling several different cells." - But they haven't actually managed to deliver any of these highly organised terrorists despite 'knowing' all about them.

Iraq - Leave

Afghanistan - Stay

North Korea - Cut off, DO NOT ATTACK!!!!!

International Cricket - We suck

International Football - We suck more

Bird Flu - Why has it all gone quiet in the media? Surely 50% of us should be dead by now?

and finally

Scottish Independance - Give it to them, then they'll find that they're no longer ridiculously over-represented, getting fantastic public transport networks paid for courtesy of the rest of the UK or (completely non-politically motivated) shipbuilding contracts from the MOD.
I should point out my wife is Scottish (but she's great with kids) and I do actually like Scotland. I just think it has more political clout than it should have.

FUCK OFF!

Just read this on the BBC sports pages.

I didn't even know this organisation existed until today.

It should be disbanded immediately. If those involved refuse then they should be banned from participating in European competions.

Why?

Because it is yet more proof that football is incredibly elitist and only exists to make the rich clubs richer at the expense of everyone else. Especially the Champions League.

Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool are the three English clubs currently part of G14.

Funny how those three English clubs are the same three English clubs that were seeded for this years Champions League?
Despite the fact that Chelsea were the champions of their domestic league for the second consecutive season and had gone further than Manchester United in the competition for the previous three seasons.

The whole thing stinks.

Turn of the Tide?

Gender equality is a regular feature on my blog.

For once there's been a positive landmark ruling in the courts.

Shame it wasn't the courts in this country, they got it wrong and it had to be escalated to Europe.

This kind of claim pisses me off for several reasons. The most annoying of all is that Parental Discrimination seems to equal Sexual Discrimination.

Bullshit!

Men are parents too. We didn't design the human body so we shouldn't be prejudiced against in this way.

Any case that claims to be Sexual Descrimination on the grounds of childcare should instantly be thrown out of court if the plaintiff cannot prove that the opposite sex are given better childcare provisions. It isn't sex descrimination, case dismissed.

When my wife and I start a family, once she's fully recovered from the physical ordeal of the birth, the one who earns the least money will stay at home to look after our baby(s) - genetic possibility of twins. At the moment the smart money is on my wife staying at home or reducing her hours but she could potentially overtake me.

As far as the whole getting paid more for doing your work thing goes. I couldn't agree more. An employer HAS to reward its staff for working for them instead of taking time off. The woman who lost her case was nothing short of a money grabbing opportunist.

I'm all for equal pay in the workplace but as far as I'm concerned it already exists. The reason why women (on average) earn less than men is usually because of the life choices they've made for their: Education, Higher Education, Career, Family.

Parenthood - The New Rock & Roll

My parents brought me up well and without a huge fuss. They didn't have special parking spaces at the supermarket, they didn't have tax credits when my mum was only working part time and they certainly didn't have any super-cool celebrity parents to model themselves on.

So what makes the current batch of parents so special?

Why do they think that those that don't have young children 'can't possibly understand' their situation?

What are they doing that my parents weren't and why are they deemed so important?

Has this idea of flexible working hours been thought out fully?

It will mean that even if you're in the armed forces or emergency services you can put the job you chose and get paid to do on hold whilst you pick up your children from school or change their nappy. Of course some of them already have.

I don't think this goes far enough. Convicted criminals with children should be given flexible sentances, of course some of them already have too.*

Surely any employment scheme that is only for employees with children discriminates against those without them?

You choose to have children (my wife and I will probably start a family in a few years time) why should everyone else have to suffer to help you cope with your choice?

*Lisa Harvey was jailed for stealing over 100,000 items of mail earlier this year but was released from prison early to give birth to her baby (That she would have conceived after the trial date was set). I'd normally insert a link but I can't find one. It was on Spotlight - the BBC local news programme for the South-West but it isn't on the BBC website.

Green Rubbish

In case you didn't know it's National Meetings Week this week.

I've been sent a load of useful information about how bad meetings are for the environment and what you can do to make them better and they talk utter crap.

The 10 Top Tips for Holding Green Meetings lists the number one tip as:

"1. Save paper. Using new media and electronic technology can cut down your paper use. If your meeting is a large event, create a website for it offering electronic registration and confirmation; and advertise using the web and/or email. If the meeting is internal, try using a laptop or projector to conduct the meeting instead of printing out lots of copies of agendas."

So instead of using paper which can be recycled and comes from trees which can be regrown, use a laptop which is not only bad for the environment in terms of the way it was produced but uses electricity as well. Good tip!

They also quote a bunch of 'facts':

"A typical 5 day conference for 2,500 attendees will use 90,000 cans or bottles, 750,000 cups and 87,500 napkins (Meeting Strategies Worldwide, 2003)."

So they're saying that the average person at the average conference gets through 60 cups per day as well as 7.2 cans and 7 napkins... I can believe the napkins bit.

I'm a fairly green person. I recycle at home, I avoid using the car when I can walk, the car is a diesel and I stick it in neutral when going down hill.

But I can understand why people get pissed off with the green lobby when they quote bullshit statistics as facts.

Like 'a bus is better for the environment than a car'. Yes it is if the bus is full and the car only has the driver in it. But if the bus only has a handful of passengers in it and the car driver is giving someone a lift (a.k.a. car-sharing) then that isn't the case.

Whatsmore, if the bus is a bit old and you can see black smoke coming out of the exhaust then it definately isn't the case.

I don't get why environmentalists are so opposed to incinerators either. If rubbish (predominantly junk mail, food scraps and packaging) is burnt then the main emission is carbon. Carbon is then absorbed by trees and plants to make them grow so that they can eventually be chopped down to produce junk mail, food scraps and packaging.

It's carbon neutral, just like bio-diesel (which the government is determined to stop us from using - last nights Fifth Gear pointed this out extremely well) and bio-ethanol.

If we plant more trees then they can absorb more carbon. Dartmoor and Exmoor used to be woodland, lets get them back that way. Money taken in duty from these biofuels can be used to create and maintain these new forests across the country. Easy.

Bent Whistle

I was watching the highlights of the Chelsea game (COME ON VILLA!) on both Sky Sports and BBC. I often watch both as you get a fairer picture of the game rather than the bits that one channel deemed was worthy of viewing (i.e. All the Chelsea chances).

Phil Thompson had said at the end of the game that Chelsea were getting all the decisions to go their way: A possible foul on our keeper for their goal and a blatent red card for Makelele (On Angel) were the most notable.

Either he or one of the commentators said that the teams at the top often tend to get the rub of the green. But is that necessarily the right way round?

Could it also be argued that the teams that get the rub of the green end up at the top?

There have been several games I've watched where the referee has consistantly favoured one team over another (Arsenal vs. Wigan last season for example) but there is never any hint of bribary from the pundits or the opposition.

Surely if this whole bung business is testiment to anything in football, it's that there are people that will be corrupted by money and that there are people out to corrupt them with money.

Why do we assume that a referee is somehow untouchable?

More importantly, why does no-one ever even hint that they might be corrupt?

Just look at what happened in Italy. That wasn't in isolation either. There has been corruption in the French league as well.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that every time a big decision goes the wrong way that it is due to bribery. Yesterday's game at Spurs is an example. The referee made a mistake in awarding that penalty and admitted as much. They're allowed to make mistakes, they're only human (I think).

It looks rigged when a referee consistently gives favour to one side over another in areas of the pitch that could potentially result in a match-changing event. A good sign is how far up the pitch your team wins free kicks compared to others:
A dodgy referee will always give you free kicks near the centre circle. They will also award a foul in your own half when the opposition doesn't look like scoring.
This is done to 'even out' the game statistically.

However if you get a free kick or even a penalty but still feel aggrieved by a decision that the opposition were given then it is most likely because you're Rafael Benitez.

P.S. Going to the Spurs game next Saturday. First live Villa game this season - excited!

What's The World Coming To?

You know the world is turning evil when you can post an item laughing at a seven year old boy that set fire to himself and not one person posts a comment telling you how sick you are or how truly appalled they feel.

I'm disgusted with you all!

Have you no boundaries that I've crossed?

Have you no moral standards I've broken?

Have you no sense of decency that I've touched?

You should all be ashamed of yourselves!