Soccer Semantics

So, England and Chelsea captain John Terry will face criminal charges relating to alleged racist comments to QPR’s Anton Ferdinand, the Crown Prosecution service have confirmed. Luis Suarez, the Uruguayan striker currently plying his trade for Liverpool FC, has been banned for eight matches and fined £40,000 for using what has been deemed a racial slur during a clash with Man Utd defender Patrice Evra. The beautiful game shows its ugly side again. 

Whilst the Suarez incident was apparently not overheard by other players or match officials, Terry’s alleged misconduct was viewed by millions on YouTube. Interestingly, neither has denied using racially charged language. Terry claims his comments have been taken out of context, that he was actually repeating something that Ferdinand had accused him of saying, by way of denial. Suarez’ defence is more of a cultural clarification. He freely admits calling Evra a “negro”, but says that in his native Uruguay it is not a derogatory term.  The Oxford Dictionary defines a Negro as “a member of the black or dark-skinned group of human populations…” So far so good, but it goes on to say that the term is now “often considered offensive”. No kidding. As Suarez earns £80,000 a week, one imagines he has a highly impressive book collection, but not yet a dictionary, it would seem.

The FA has spent time, money and celebrity endorsements aplenty combating discrimination. Racism’s a stain that works into the fabric of a society, untreated it becomes commonplace, and therefore invisible. Although unseen, it is felt, often silently borne. On the flipside of course, lies the potential to fabricate a situation for one’s own ends. And somewhere in the middle of all that is the truth, if you can find it.

In football, as in politics, there is the tendency to react even to moral issues along party lines. The blue team’s accused, the red team bays for blood, and both wait to see how many headline inches will be thrown at the problem before it blows over or blows up. Sadly, Chelsea manager Andre Villas-Boas has promised to stand by his captain “whatever the outcome”. Liverpool take a similar stance over Suarez. Assumption of innocence until guilt is proven underlines our humanity, but stoical support of an individual in the face of acknowledged prejudicial behaviour is tantamount to endorsement of the prejudice itself. But economics trumps ethics every time. The club is a business, the player’s an asset, the rest is irrelevant. Without prejudging the eventual outcome for the players involved, if, as a society, we can’t hold China to account over human rights abuses because we want cheap fridges, how seriously will we really sanction these feral offerings from our footballers?  

Vote or Veto?

David Cameron may have slipped off a couple of continental Christmas card lists this week. But that’s not bad, it saves trees. He also salvaged the festive feel good factor with Eurosceptic backbenchers, still grumbling into their gin after the EU membership referendum debacle.

Essentially, the Prime Minister used his veto to scupper an otherwise unanimous decision over European treaty reform, aimed (albeit with debatable accuracy) at safeguarding the beleaguered Euro. Not the only leader to voice concerns, David Cameron was, however, the sole signatory out of a potential 27, not to sign up. Boldly putting our money where his mouth is, perhaps, or finding both feet already there?

Very few on this island would really want financial edicts from Brussels. The euro-club has whimsical membership rules, and with some party-goers more solvent than others, it’s likely the bar bill would always be split, regardless of who had been the most thirsty. Worse still, some at the table don’t have a bean, so the major bean counters will either have to compensate, or capitulate. In that instance, if the Euro project falls apart, Cameron’s uncompromising stance will be vindicated. If the Eurozone weathers the storm, however, the bedraggled survivors, and the UKs main trading partners, may well remember who was unwilling to share their wellies when the waters were rising.

What seems curious about the Prime Minister’s mercy mission to protect the City is his timing. Insiders say he waited until the eleventh hour before he flopped his list of demands on the table, allowing virtually no chance of a diplomatic outcome. A congratulatory claret quaffing session at Chequers with his backbenchers was already booked, which seems a trifle previous, as most leaders will have cleared their diaries for a full weekend of well-meaning waffle. Not our David. He said he would play, but only if he could pick the ref, choose the ball, move the goalposts, and their mums had to wash the kit. No surprise then that he was in a taxi by 5am, and with a festively frosty Angel Merkel to keep him company… Oh, to have been the driver.

The headlines heralded a differing domestic reaction, loosely split on party lines, but also founded on how diluted you like your British Bulldog spirit. No man is an island, but this week one man represented ours, and burnt some pretty big bridges. Time will tell if we needed them.

A major sour taste in Cameron’s mouth was the proposed financial transaction tax, and with good reason, few enjoy chipping in for a meal they have little chance of eating. We know. Many of us have not so far relished the increase in VAT, and look set to derive less pleasure still from the austerity buffet served up to pay down the deficit resulting from the banking crisis, and successive governments failure to regulate the financial services industry.

The Prime Minister was committed to protecting the City, granted, it contributes around 10% of the UK tax income. Parents also want to protect their children, but that doesn’t mean giving them the car keys. Of course, they might say if you don’t let them play with power tools on the motorway they’ll move to Hong Kong. But that assumes that their wives’ happiness, kids’ education, and quality of life as they know it, is entirely up for sale for a slightly better percentage.  If that were so, I wouldn’t trust them with the cars keys at any age.

Reading the Riots

Protestors on the streets of Syria risk death daily in search of revolution, those in the square in Egypt are disillusioned with theirs, while the people now taking to the streets of Moscow can’t remember the Russian revolution, but are feeling increasingly like the ones who started it. By contrast, those responsible for the riots across UK towns and cities in August already had freedom and democracy, didn’t know what to do with it, so just nicked trainers.  

Reading the Riots is the recently released investigation into the summer disorder by the London School of Economics and the Guardian newspaper. They interviewed 270 out of an estimated 15,000 rioters, a process that revealed an undercurrent of resentment and antipathy towards the police. Trolling through the 1.3 million words generated from first-hand accounts of those involved in the unrest, researchers found that stop and search practices were one obvious blot on the report card. However, this policy was seen by most as just one symptom of a larger epidemic of police negativity towards young people, and a failure to engage with communities. Sir Hugh Orde, the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers acknowledged that there were “frictions”. Yup, and more than a serving of Savlon will sooth, it would seem.

One might imagine that faced with a pimpled army of hormone high hooligans, the last instinct of anyone juggling with a full set of balls would be to hug a hoodie. But, unless we crack open this particular can of worms to see what makes them wriggle, they’re liable to ruin the lawn again.

Writing in the Guardian this week, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams questioned whether, with hard times ahead, “we have the energy to invest what’s needed in family and neighbourhood and school to rescue those who think they have nothing to lose.” He has a point. However, alongside those politicians seduced into dismissing it all as mindless criminality, thereby absolving themselves of any culpability for the perceived plight of the those with no prospects, it speaks of where we have evolved to, that there are those looking beyond the looting, asking why.

One imagines that after the dust has settled, Vladimir Putin too will sit down, cross-legged on his favourite bean bag, a frothy flagon of hot chocolate in hand, and enquire of his fellow Muscovites what could possibly have furrowed their brows…

Just inquiring...

Just Inquiring…

If you cannot personally attend the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics due to work commitments, an absence of appropriate footwear, or indeed a complete lack of interest, you could always catch up with the latest revelations into journalistic skulldugerry in the newspapers. After all, you can be certain of honest and unbiased reporting, because the hacks follow a Code of Practice, denoting ethical standards. In the unlikely event that these standards slip, you could always take the matter up with the Press Complaints Commission, which is a voluntary regulatory body with no legal powers. The PCC has been widely criticised for its lack of action over the phone hacking scandal, the central focus of the Leveson Inquiry. The Press Complaints Commission was set up in the 1990s, replacing the Press Council, which was kicked into the long grass because it was ineffective. Can anybody spot a pattern developing? If I were a betting man, I’d put my tenner on the PCC being forced into early retirement to be replaced with another voluntary regulatory body with no legal powers, and a rather familiar tendency towards abject failure. But that, of course, would be to unfairly pre-judge the outcome.

Set up by the Prime Minister, the inquiry is looking into press practise and ethics, and will make recommendations on future regulation of the industry. Lord Leveson will particularly focus on the “relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians.” In addition, the police investigation into phone hacking, Operation Weeting, is ongoing.

Of course, running the inquiry concurrent with the criminal investigation into phone hacking, and the like, allows alleged victims to put largely unchallenged accusations into the public domain, which one could argue would unfairly prejudice a potential trial. On the flip side of that, editors have been routinely guilty of character assassination over the years. If and when the facts turn out to be fiction, the paper’s slapped with a fine and an apology’s buried on page seven, but the stain on the victim’s public image is not always one that will wash out at 40 degrees. The pen is mightier than the sword, and some are now finding out that their biros cut both ways.

Like the Iraq War Inquiry, this one looks likely to cost as much and take as long as building the Millenium Dome, and may be just as full of hot air. However, it is largely engaging. Comedian Steve Coogan gave evidence last week. Commenting on the balance between publicity and intrusion, he said he “never entered a Faustian pact with the press”, whereas singer Charlotte Church claimed to have been offered just that. When asked to sing at Rupert Murdoch’s wedding, she was offered £100,000, or no fee, but a guarantee of good press. She didn’t take the money, and Murdoch denies the offer even existed. In the murky business of Faustian pacts, it seems if you make a deal with the devil you had better get a receipt.