The Obscurer

Thursday 3rd March 2005

Grave Architecture

I have been reading a fascinating book recently, entitled Played in Manchester by Simon Inglis. It is published by English Heritage, and is in effect a history of sport and leisure in the city and surrounding areas. I suppose you don’t have to be a Mancunian to enjoy this book, although it probably helps; however, this is just the first book in the Played in Britain series; further publications on Liverpool, Glasgow and Birmingham are in the pipeline, along with other books covering such subjects as the football stadia designer Archibald Leitch and the best of British lidos. Played in Manchester relies heavily on Francis Frith type photographs to tell its story, and personally I could look at old pictures of the Victorian and Edwardian era all day long, lost imagining others’ lives.

The book reveals countless surprises. I had no idea that the first ice rink (or Glacarium) outside London was built in Rusholme in 1877, cashing in on the craze for “rincomania”. It was John Gamgee’s refrigeration process that allowed skating on real ice during the summer months; a huge improvement on the concoction of crystallised alum, hog’s lard, soda salt and melted sulphur that had been used as one of the earlier substitutes for ice.

I always wondered why Lacrosse was so popular in my local area, when it is virtually ignored elsewhere in the country. It seems to be down to a quirk of fate. Some former members of the Stockport Rugby Club, disbanded in 1876 due to a player’s death, were on a train stuck at signals in Longsight when they saw an exhibition match between the Montreal Club and the Caughnawaga Indians. Fascinated, they decided to try the game out, and Stockport Lacrosse Club was born; it is still the world’s oldest surviving lacrosse club.

The book reveals many lost sporting grounds I didn’t know existed; there is the convoluted history of the Castle Irwell race course, now just wasteland; the White City botanical gardens and amusement park in Stretford, where only a the white entrance arches survive, standing isolated and alone on Chester Road like some sort of folly; the Fallowfield Stadium, accessed via a narrow path off Whitworth Lane, which hosted the 1893 FA Cup final when 45,000 converged on a stadium built for 15,000 (a University Halls of Residence now stands on the site, but there is no memorial plaque).

There are also the tales of the places I do remember such as Victoria Baths, winner of the first BBC Restoration programme. It is a truly beautiful building, with stained glass, mosaics, the words “well loved” emblazoned on its clock tower; yet when I went there as a child I just remember it as being old, cold and dirty. Some things are wasted on the young. Especially evocative is the chapter devoted to Belle Vue, which from memory was like Blackpool Pleasure Beach transported to East Manchester. I know that sounds tacky, but bear in mind there is no such word in a 10 year old’s vocabulary, and I remember it as a wonderful place with its big dipper and lake, its zoo and miniature railway. On my last visit, to the annual circus, I was one of about 3000 cubs who pestered Joe Corrigan for his autograph, poor bloke. Apart from the greyhound stadium, the whole of Belle Vue has now been levelled.

But as Mark E Smith once said, “Vimto and Spangles were always crap / Regardless of the look back bores” and there is more to Played in Manchester than nostalgia. There is a chapter devoted to SportCity, the area redeveloped for the 2002 Commonwealth Games, and Inglis details many of the more recent changes and developments in the region’s sporting grounds. I was particularly struck by the information regarding the redevelopment of Old Trafford football ground that began in 1995; the architects chosen were Atherden Fuller Leng, the same firm who, as Atherden Nutter, had developed OT during the 1960’s. I was impressed that a large public company such as Manchester United had stuck loyally with the same architects over four decades. It seemed a testimony to the firm’s work. Later in the book the author returns to the matter of the work done by Atherden and partners; I continued to read about their designs for stadia throughout the North West and London, including Liverpool’s Anfield ground.

It was reading this piece of information that made me reconsider my opinion of Atherden. Is the word epiphany? Whatever, as soon as I discovered that they had been involved with both the Old Trafford and Anfield redesigns I immediately saw the similarities.

Anfield first. I have only been there once, to watch a 6-0 trouncing at the hands of Liverpool; it was the game where the chant “Alan Ball’s a football genius” made its first appearance. I was sat with a Liverpool supporting friend of mine in the new Centenary stand, and the cartilage in my knees still bears a groove formed by the back of the next seat down. To say the bloke in front of me was close really doesn’t do justice to the whole proximity thing. They really did squeeze us in; next time I will bring a shoehorn. We were sat on the far left side of the stand, right by the Kop; my mate was sat to my right, but the seat to my left was empty which was a good job, as they’d had to slice off one corner of that seat to squeeze it in next to the concrete wall dividing our stand from the Kop. There was even the frame next to that seat presumably with the intention of fitting another spectator in, but they had been unable to make use of it.

Old Trafford is little better. The past few times I have been, borrowing another mate’s season ticket in the K stand, I have had a similarly uncomfortable experience. United fans get a lot of stick from their club for standing up throughout the game, but I don’t blame them; it is the only way to get through the 90 minutes pain free.

Now I am not a particularly big bloke – 5’10, that’s all – so I really pity some people who regularly attend either of these grounds. In contrast City’s ground is great; it may not be perfect – the so-called extra wide concourses are nothing of the kind – but at least you can watch the game in relative comfort. The Kippax where I used to sit at Maine Road was also fine. Hats off to Arup Sport then, designers of the City of Manchester Stadium, showing how it can be done.

Who is to blame? It may be that Atherden have set out their stall as a firm who are happy to undercut their competitors by cramming as many seats as possible into the available area. Perhaps though it is down the football clubs themselves, giving a commission to architects, and telling them not to worry about such quaint notions as deep vein thrombosis and blood circulation. It would be interesting to listen in to the discussions between architect and client when designing a new stadium, to see where the comfort of the paying customers comes into the equation. Unfortunately, I would imagine it will often come pretty low down the pecking order. Football fans blind loyalty leaves us open to exploitation most of the time, I fear.

But with so many new stadia being built at the moment, I will keep my eyes open to see who is getting the contracts, and what the subsequent reaction is from the fans. If your club is getting a new ground, it may be worth asking a few questions, particularly if Atherden Fuller Leng get the job. We may no longer fit 45,000 people into stadia built for 15,000, but perhaps it’s not for the want of trying.

Leave a comment
Sunday 27th February 2005

Blogs And The Blogger

Just as novelists have a nasty habit of writing novels about novels and novelists, so bloggers have a tendency to write blogs about blogging and bloggers. And I don’t mean people mention another blog as a starting point to go on to discuss another subject; I mean the subject is blogging itself. This is not meant as a criticism, just an observation. I’ve done the same myself; in fact I’m doing it right now.

Blogging about blogs has gone into overdrive the past week or so; everywhere you go you can read discussions about Iain Duncan Smith’s article in the Guardian concerning blogging as a political tool, about the Backing Blair campaign by bloggers to affect the result at the forthcoming general election, about the new list of Top 10 British Blogs. Everyone seems to be talking about blogs.

Through all the articles written this week concerning blogging, I think the best was by NoseMonkey at Europhobia; he pretty much hits several nails right on the head in this post. I particularly empathise with him when I read that he thinks, “around 80% (of bloggers) seem to be either single-issue obsessives, vindictive arseholes or nowhere near as educated or clever as they think they are. The remaining 20% is made up of people – like me – who really just want to be columnists on a national newspaper. Why the hell do our opinions matter?”. He believes that relatively few bloggers are like him and just want to “think about the issues a bit and work out where I stand”.

But a particular mention must go to Tim Worstall, and his idea of publishing a weekly roundup of the best posts across a range of blogs. The idea is that everyone nominates one post each week, either from their own or someone else’s blog; you email the details to Tim, and those that he considers to be the best will be listed on his blog each Sunday. This really is a cracking idea, and could act as a great introduction for people new to blogs, and to showcase blogs different from those you would normally read. The first roundup was posted last week, and was terrific. There were some blogs I especially enjoyed reading (Nick Barlow, Liberal England) and I will visit again; others blogs (no names, no pack drill) I won’t; but that is as it should be. Tim’s intention is to select differing, contrary and wide-ranging viewpoints, which is admirable (That said, I won’t be nominating a post entitled “Why all Libertarians are wankers”; but then again I wouldn’t write one).

I will probably pop in a few suggestions and submissions of my own, from other blogs, and from The Obscurer when I think I have written something half decent; but more than being a just a way to publicise my own writing, and the writings of others I admire, I like the the way the weekly roundup could act as an invaluable summary of the best writing from British bloggers.

As I have said before, I feel weak and ill when I see how regularly some bloggers post; every day, or even several times a day. I really don’t know how they find the time; I will never be so prolific (perhaps I just don’t get bothered by so many things, or I don’t have as much to say). But at the same time that I find it difficult to spare the time to write, I find it difficult to spare the time to read half the stuff out there, particularly by the more prodigious writers.

When I first started reading blogs I could lose hours flitting from one to another, following a thread from blog to blog; but since my son has started referring to the dog as “daddy” I have realised I am unable to spend as much time sat at the PC. There are more important things to do, which I enjoy doing; such as talking to my wife, that sort of thing.

So a concise list of highlights each week is a great idea. I hope Tim’s roundup takes off, and given the mild egotism inherent in most bloggers souls I guess submissions aren’t going to be a problem; the biggest threat will be if Tim is swamped with suggestions and is unable to wade through them all. But for the time being the BritBlog Roundup is with us, and I am looking forward to the second instalment.

2 Comments
Thursday 24th February 2005

The Other Sudan

How often has the situation in Darfur dominated news coverage? I know it has been mentioned, and has even been discussed in some detail on Newsnight and Channel 4 News; but has it ever been the first item on all the main news bulletins, and had lengthy and detailed in-depth analysis devoted to it across all channels? If it has happened, then I don’t remember it. But Sudan did briefly take over news broadcasting last week; only it wasn’t Sudan in Africa, but the health scare caused by the toxic dye Sudan 1 being found in a range of foods across the country. Has the media lost all sense of proportion?

Now of course, I am not suggesting that the issue shouldn’t have been covered, but wouldn’t it be nice if the media showed the same zeal in trying to discuss Darfur? And just how did they discuss Sudan 1? First of all, the media were angry that we weren’t informed of the threat sooner. When the Food Standards Agency explained the detailed action they had taken, they were then accused of over reacting and panicking the British public. When the media weren’t complaining about the speed of the FSA’s response they were bemoaning the fact that it had taken the Italian authorities to discover the problem; why did we have to rely on the Italians? Perhaps it is just me, but surely someone has to discover the problem; why not the Italians? But as usual, the media are too busy analysing everything to death and looking for someone to blame.

It seems to me as if the FSA acted about right. They had to pass out the information and products have to be recalled; fine. Sorry though; perhaps I will live to regret this, but I’m not too concerned. Let’s face it; how much Sudan 1 do you need to consume to be in any danger? I can’t imagine much red colouring is needed to go into red chilli powder to make it redder. I don’t think a huge amount of chilli powder goes into making Worcester Sauce. Then, how much Worcester Sauce goes into the food products themselves? I would imagine a dash. So even if you have eaten a contaminated product, you have probably ingested a little of not a lot of a smidgen of Sudan 1.

Is eating burnt toast or sitting in a smoky pub more carcinogenic? Because I did both things last week (although not at the same time; I’m not mad). As the supermarkets clear their shelves of Beef Pot Noodles they are still happily selling tobacco products. And what if you drop your last chip on the floor in a restaurant, and sneakily pop it into you mouth (while no one is looking of course); if that floor has been polished with a product containing Sudan 1, are you getting a more concentrated hit of the toxin?

This story screams of over-reaction on all sides; my Mother-in-law even sent us a frantic text message warning us not to eat at McDonalds. We followed her advice, but for different reasons. No; if it’s all right with you I will reserve my concern for the people of Darfur.

2 Comments
Thursday 24th February 2005

The Law's A Fox

The debate on fox hunting has moved on from the parliamentary stage and through the legal challenges; now all the discussions are about the role of the police and their enforcement of the law. The earlier stages of the debate have been characterised by people talking a right load of bollocks on all sides, and this stage of the argument is no different.

I have read conflicting stories about whether a greater or lesser number of foxes were killed on the first day that hunting was made illegal. There are also a number of claims that not all hunts stayed within the new law, and that some foxes were killed unlawfully, apparently in mockery of the new legislation. Well, it may come as a surprise to some people, but the law is being broken all the time, even as we speak, in a huge variety of ways; this in itself does not affect whether a certain law is worthwhile or not.

I don’t want to get into the guts of whether or not the hunting ban is a good or bad thing, just to comment on some of the recent criticisms. For example, it has been suggested that the police have more important things to do than chase after huntsmen, as if this is reason enough to argue against a hunting ban; but the police already have a wide range of incidents they have to deal with, from the trivial to the serious, and they prioritise accordingly. Murder is a more serious matter than shoplifting; but that doesn’t mean the police shouldn’t bother with shoplifting, does it?

Another complaint is that it is pretty difficult to assess whether or not anyone is in fact breaking the new law, and so it is a tricky thing to actually bring charges against anybody. It is argued that if it is difficult to bring a prosecution then the whole fabric of law and order falls into contempt and disrepute. But what are burglary detection rates at the moment? Around 17%? Lower? Following this logic we shouldn’t bother with a criminal offence of Burglary either, because it is so difficult to get a conviction. It just strikes me that these are poor reasons to oppose the new law.

According the The Times, everyone is dismayed by the way the police seem to be handling this. Anti-hunters are reported to be upset by Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting of Dorset Constabulary, due to his statement “that illegal hunting (is) much less important than letting off a firework after 11pm”. Pro-hunters “fears that police will rely on ‘vigilante groups’”.

The simple fact is that the police will respond, or will not respond, depending on the information they are passed by the general public. If they are informed of a breach of the law while a hunt is in progress, then they will attend to see if any offences are being committed, but only if there is an officer available; they won’t be dragging someone off an armed robbery to investigate, however. If someone makes an official complaint after the event and states they have evidence of an offence then the police will assess this evidence and see if a crime has been committed and whether or not anyone can be charged. If they feel there is enough information to charge an individual then they will present the evidence to the CPS who will decide if they think there is a case to answer in court. If they decide there is then the case will go to trial where a jury can decide. It is not rocket science.

Will the law be broken? Yes. Will people get away with breaking the law? Of course. Will the standing of the justice system suffer as a result? Not unless people want it to. When my car was broken into a few years back, an offence had clearly been committed yet no one was caught for the crime. Actually, I didn’t even bother to report it; not because I had no faith in the police, but because realistically nothing could be done by anyone to trace the offenders. I didn’t curse the police, or wail that there was no point in there being a crime of criminal damage on the statute book and the law may as well be repealed; I just got my brother to bend the passengers door back into place and carried on driving it (until it got nicked a month later!).

Which reminds me; if you’ll excuse me I am off to break the law myself. I will do what millions of people do every day and commit an offence. I will break a law that I agree with, and which I do not wish to see repealed. Even though I am going to wilfully and happily commit an offence, I do not feel the law itself is being brought into disrepute. I am about to get into my car, and historically I think I have broken the law every time I have driven. And no; I don’t mean I am intending to run over a fox.

Update 25/2/05: Last night on Question Time, Anne Atkins said she had been hunting mice around her house this week, in defiance of the hunting ban, to show how foolish and unenforceable the new law is. Roger Scruton has been doing the same. Is the new legislation any more foolish than hunting mice just in order to prove a point? I doubt it. Whatever, most of the points I have made above apply to Anne’s revelation; she may have broken the law (Alun Michael said she hasn’t) but it seems a pretty trivial breach, and if she keeps quiet about it then the police will be none the wiser, and she can continue to break the law to her heart’s content.

The thing is that Anne is publicising her criminal activities; she says she wants to go to prison for her actions, and the fact that she is still at large proves that the law is unenforceable. Well it doesn’t. If she really wants to be arrested, then rather than mouth off on TV she should present herself at a police station and admit her crime. I suspect the police will try to talk her out of the action (they do have more important things to deal with, you know), but if she insists and signs a confession then she can have her day before the magistrates. Well done. However, if she thinks she will have proved that the law is a waste of police time, then she will be wrong; she personally will have wasted police time, through her own stupidity and childishness.

Leave a comment
Sunday 20th February 2005

Uranium To Spare

I haven’t watched Who Wants To Be A Millionaire regularly for quite some time; I preferred it when it was on every night for a fortnight or so, and everybody watched it and talked about it the next day. Nowadays it is just another quiz show.

So I was as surprised as anyone when I found myself watching it yesterday; and I was even more surprised when Alistair Campbell and his partner Fiona Millar turned up as contestants. Regular readers of this blog will know that Campbell is something of a bete-noir of mine, so I was interested to see how they would fare.

What was initially noticeable was just how nervous Campbell seemed; he was grinning uncertainly throughout the first few questions, a bit like a Cheshire cat trying to gauge the mood of the audience. Perhaps he was aware that he was in a position to get his fingers burned, like his boss Tony Blair seems to have done by appearing on just about every TV programme under the sun last week.

But it really got interesting when he was asked a question that went something like “Finish the title of the following television programme; ‘Knowing Me, Knowing You With…’” An easy enough question you would think? The programme makers obviously thought so, which is why it was only a £2000 question, or thereabouts. But Campbell and Millar were completely stumped; they started muttering something about ABBA, but they really had no clue at all.

Now this is fine I guess; I don’t expect everyone to have the same knowledge of sit-coms that I do. But isn’t it amazing that two prominent figures – one who was Labour’s director of communications, the other the former adviser to Cherie Blair – are apparantly unaware of a landmark television programme that ruthlessly mocked the pretence and pretensions of the media? Is it any wonder, then, that when Blair cranks the cheesy insincerity up to 11, Campbell is unable to tell him how stupid and Alan Partridge-like he seems?

In the end they asked the audience, and 91% gave the correct answer; an indication of just how out of touch the contestants are.

But worse was to come. A few questions later the duo were asked “Which country launched the Skylab space station in 1973?” with the options of Great Britain, France, the USA and Russia. Again, an easy question? Perhaps; but even if you don’t know the answer, there is surely only one guess you could reasonably make, isn’t there? I mean, Skylab doesn’t sound very Russian does it, and the British and French space agencies have done very little individually, whilst their most famous collective effort is currently littering the Martian landscape.

Well, apparently it isn’t that straight forward. Campbell and Millar ummed and arred, they thought and re-thought, they just didn’t know, and couldn’t even make an educated guess. To compound the offence, Millar wondered out loud “what year was the Apollo moon landing,” to which Campbell replied, “oh, 1970-something I think.”

1970-something? For Christ’s sake; doesn’t everyone know it was 1969? No pub quiz in the land would demean itself by asking when man first stepped on the moon; neither would any school quiz. It was, quite frankly, an astonishing display of ignorance.

Well, it barely matters what happened next I suppose. Our heroes got it into their heads that the most likely answer was Britain, but they asked a friend (no, not Tony) who thought it could be France. They went 50/50, and were astonished when Britain and Russia were eliminated, making it a straight choice between the United States (who have been responsible for the first space walk, the moon landings, the space shuttle) and France (their Ariane rockets enable us to watch satellite telly).

They went for France, and that was the end of their stay on the programme. £1000 went to charity though, so it’s not all bad news.

I know I shouldn’t be surprised at the fallibility of those who seek to rule us, but it is scary to think that Campbell was, at one time, probably the second most powerful man in the country. He still has the ear of the Prime Minister, and remains hugely influential within Blair’s cabal. If such people don’t even know in which year Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, then no wonder they don’t know if there were any WMD in Iraq, or anything else for that matter; yet these are the very people who make wide ranging decisions on our behalf. I was laughing when I watched Who Wants To Be A Millionaire last night, but the more I think about it, it really isn’t a laughing matter.

2 Comments