The Also-Rans Midweek Kickabout

What a week of European football. Controversial goals, controversial free kicks, controversial controversy. Also, inside sources reveal some English bloke played for Milan against Manchester United, but goodness knows why they think that’s important.

Nope, it’s the Premier League that’s really intriguing me, and specifically the chat about a fourth-place play-off for that final Champions League spot. Is it a good idea?

In short, no. Shorter, N. The only way I could making this even briefer would be to punch the original exponent of the idea in the face.

Putting aside the argument that 38 games should be enough to decide the standings without the need for a play-off, it’s utterly ridiculous that a team finishing seventh, potentially some 20 points behind fourth, could play in the damn CHAMPIONS LEAGUE. It’s absurd enough that a team finishing fourth can. At least change the name of the tournament to ‘The Also-Rans Midweek Kickabout’ or something.

The play-off idea really might happen. For it to go any further, 14 of the league’s 20 teams need to back the idea, which is interesting considering 14 of the league’s 20 teams won’t be in any way affected. Predictably, those in favour include Martin O’Neill (Aston Villa are seventh) and those against include Rafa Benitez and Arsene Wenger (Liverpool fifth; Arsenal third).

It seems almost too obvious that the final spot shouldn’t go to fourth at all but the FA Cup winners, opening the race for a Champions League place wider than a play-off would and giving the tournament more importance. Hell, play tiddlywinks for the spot if you have to. Just don’t give it to fourth.

None of the contenders even want fourth, it seems. The best teams drop points now and then, but even as a fan you have to ask the question: based on this season, do any of Liverpool, Manchester City, Spurs or Aston Villa really deserve to rank alongside Europe’s league champions? Really?

Read More...

Summary only...

'Broken Britain' - a broken claim

But don't listen to me - listen to them!

The Economist has produced a superb piece featuring some fascinating statistics on the claims behind 'Broken Britain' - teenage pregnancies, a rise in alcohol consumption, etc. In short, they're not true.

So read it - please. At least look at the pictures. Enlightening or reinforcing - either way, they're important.

Sorry, that's all you're getting from me. There's nothing I could add that can't be summarised by calling the Conservative Party a bag o' wankers.

Many thanks to the excellent exclarotive for bringing this to my attention.

Read More...

Summary only...

Capello Bridges the gap

I know Fabio Capello is a clever, clever man, but I'm not sure this is the mark of a strong leader.

And by that I mean Capello, not Terry. We all know about the Chelsea cheater's indiscretions, and the debate over whether he should be stripped as captain. It's not an unreasonable argument: dressing room harmony is so important in the build-up to a World Cup, and acting like you're on Hollyoaks doesn't help things.

Personally, I'm amused that Terry's target was the partner of Wayne Bridge, of all people - one Vanessa Perroncel. In terms of fame, she's not exactly Victoria Beckham or Cheryl Cole, is she? It smacks of bullying to me, as if Terry is the loudmouth jock in an American teen film, boasting he can lay the geek's girlfriend at the drop of a thong.

Also, the concerns over a void at left-back if Cole is injured and Bridge resigns shouldn't be too hyped. It'll give the talented Stephen Warnock a chance.

But back to the Telegraph article: should it be left up to Wayne Bridge, the man so wronged in this affair, to decide whether Terry should be dropped as captain? Bridge, a man whose own place in the starting XI is totally reliant on Ashley Cole's fitness? Bridge, a man who is easily one of the least integral members of the squad? Asking the ex-team mate to decide his captain's fate is arguably fairest, but it doesn't seem the most professional of moves by Capello. You need to take charge and be firm.

The Telegraph suggests that for better or worse, the final word will rest with Bridge. If Terry wants to keep that armband, he'd better hope his team mate decides it's water under the Bridge.

Ugh, sorry.

Read More...

Summary only...

...but was she raped?

Five men have been cleared of raping a woman after it emerged she had spoken online about group sex fantasies.

But was she raped?

The 24-year-old from Liverpool claimed she was raped after visiting one of the men at his home in Bolton, after making contact on the internet.

But the trial at Preston Crown Court collapsed when computer evidence was produced showing her entertaining the prospect of group sex.

But was she raped?

Judge Robert Brown ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts.

Why? Because she had group sex fantasies? I don't know the ins and outs of the case (sorry) but I know group sex fantasies aren't rape fantasies. Was she raped?

[Prosecutor Michael Leeming] formally offered no evidence after reading excerpts of MSN chatlogs of her conversations before the alleged offence.

He said: "It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words 'her morals go out of the window'."

Right, OK. Although that's not to say what other people's morals might be, out of the window or otherwise. It's not a case of matching morals here - rape is still immoral, even if the victim is too. So it still matters: was she raped?

The woman said she had agreed to visit Mr Owolabi after meeting him on MSN.

She alleged she wanted to just have sex with him, but was then raped by the others.

Judge Brown told the jury: "This case depended on the complainant's credibility.

"Not to put too fine a point on it, her credibility was shot to pieces."

Fine. Credibility is important in an accusation. But what about evidence? The prosecutor decided "it would not be appropriate to offer any evidence" after the revelation of his client's desire for group sex.

The law of innocent until proven guilty means the right decision has been made in light of evidence not being presented. But if the only reason it was not presented was because the prosecutor knew his client had slim chance of winning the case due to her reputation being in doubt, this is deeply worrying. I just hope he knows something we don't (i.e. that the alleged victim is lying); otherwise, a victim's quest for justice has failed purely because of incredibly flimsy non-evidence.

Because it doesn't matter if she'd entertained group sex fantasies or even rape fantasies before the alleged incident. All that matters is -

Was she raped?

Read More...

Summary only...