Mooli*
*working title, as christened by my son. ETA 20 weeks.
The Obscurer
Month: July, 2006
Saturday 22nd July 2006
Mooli*
*working title, as christened by my son. ETA 20 weeks.
Tuesday 18th July 2006
Bombing The Road To Damascus
A long, long time ago, before it began to be written by/for chimps, I used to watch The Bill. Most episodes would feature a police officer interviewing a suspect, and try as they might the writers found that there was only so much variety they could put into such scenes. If I had bothered to keep score then I would have lost count of the number of times the suspect would break down and confess along the lines of “Alright; I did it, I stabbed her to death in the kitchen. But you weren’t there! You don’t know what it was like, the way she kept taunting me! I had to do it; any man would have done the same!”; at which point awkward glances are exchanged between the interviewing officers and the murderer’s solicitor, each thinking “err, oh no we wouldn’t”.
I have been reminded of such storylines while listening to a parade of people on television and radio excusing Israel from using a sledgehammer – or rocket – to crack a nut in dealing with the attacks currently emanating from Lebanon. Israel, it appears, has no option but to react in the way it has in the face of Hizbullah’s aggression, and any country would have acted in the same fashion. I find it an unconvincing line myself. It is not that I believe Israel doesn’t have a clear right to respond, but I do question the severity of that response.
What I have thought interesting, when I have read the usual suspects complaining about the media’s coverage of the situation and their alleged bias, for example questioning the nature of Israel’s response, is that while we have seen many people defend Israel’s actions I personally have not seen a single person seek to excuse Hizbullah; but I don’t find this surprising. I think it goes without saying that any right-minded person condemns Hizbullah and their continued assaults upon Israel and its citizens. You would think the same would go for Israel’s acts, but apparently not. If people such as Melanie Phillips are astonished that Israel keeps getting criticised, perhaps she should reflect that it is because of apologists such as her that what should go without saying needs having to be said, over and over again, in the hope that it might finally sink in.
Where do we go from here? If Israel thinks that bombing the innocent in Lebanon will make them see the light and turn against Hizbullah, then history tends to suggest the opposite reaction. Melanie Phillips, again, in this article, tackles those who complain of Israel’s “disproportionate response” by stating that it is “no more ‘disproportionate’ than, for example NATO’s bombing of civilian targets in Serbia to force it to withdraw from Kosovo.” But apart from the fact that, a) although I am in the minority on this I personally do believe that NATO’s response there was disproportionate (it is a long story why, certainly another post for another day; suffice it to say that I think there could have been a peaceful resolution to the situation) and b) in over-reacting to acts of terrorism I would say Israel more resembles Serbia than NATO, the bombing of Belgrade during the Kosovo conflict had the immediate effect of uniting pretty much all Serb’s, both pro- and anti- Milosevic, against NATO. Israel will be casting a similar spell now in Lebanon; their response is surely doomed to failure.
I am no expert on the geo-political situation in the Middle East, as I think I have just proven; but you have to wonder what Hizbullah’s game plan is, and I would hope that Israel does too. If we take it as read – I have no reason to doubt it – that Iran and/or Syria are behind all this, then you have to imagine that launching rockets into Haifa and killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers is not in itself going to drive Israel into the sea; the intention must be to provoke a response from Israel which would lead to even greater instability in the region. If so then Israel has reacted in a predictable and depressing manner. I’m speculating, of course; but if I’m right then the harsher Israel reacts, with their cheerleaders in the media justifying each attack regardless of its consequences, then the more they are falling in with their enemies’ plans.
Thursday 13th July 2006
No Licence For Your Petty, Petty Petty Crime
Time has now run out now for the NatWest Three (or Enron Three, depending on your viewpoint); as I write they are on an aeroplane bound for Texas where they are due to attend a bail hearing tomorrow and eventually stand trial for fraud.
There are good reasons to be concerned about the 2003 Extradition Act under which the three men are being removed from the country, primarily the fact that US prosecutors have not been required to provide prima facie evidence to the UK authorities when requesting extradition, and it is this issue that has most vexed organisations such as Liberty. There is also a concern that the three may not be granted bail, and so could languish in gaol abroad away from their families for two years awaiting trial, although how well founded that fear is considering the nature of the alleged crime I do not know.
But I think that there has been an unpleasant tone to much of the defence campaign for the three suspects. Richard Lambert of the CBI, speaking on Sunday AM this week, said that “no one is going to care much about what happens to three bankers”, but to me it seems that it is only because the defendants are bankers that they have featured so high up the news pecking order. Had these three been accused of more serious crimes, or been members of a less prestigious profession, then I doubt there would have been such a fuss about the level of evidence required to extradite them, it would just have been a case of “let’s get rid”.
As an example, take a look at the Daily Telegraph’s petition to John Reid requesting him to step in to prevent the extradition. The paper has probably been the most vociferous critic of the 2003 Extradition Act, at least with regards the NatWest Three, and in part its petition reads
We, the undersigned, believe your Government approved a manifestly unfair extradition treaty with the United States. It was done with good intentions – to help fight against terrorism – but the outcome has been highly damaging to our national interest…
…The treaty is being used by the US legal system not to capture bombers but to bring to trial in America British business folk.
Or, to put is another way, “Now look hear, we were quite happy with the extradition act in theory, when we thought it was about shipping over dusky skinned rag-head terrorists who aren’t really British anyway to our minds, but did you know that in practice they are going after the likes of us Daily Telegraph reading ABC1 professional types? It’s just not on”. If it sounds like I am being unfair and putting words into their mouths then that is only because that is exactly what I am doing; but it is still the grim impression I get from reading about the Telegraph’s campaign. Some statements made during the Common’s debate last night echoed this feeling, that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the act, just the disquiet that comes from it not being used exclusively against terrorists.
As a result the NatWest Three’s defence has centred more on the claim that it is unfair that the men are extradited when they could stand trial in this country, and that as the US Congress hasn’t ratified their act there is currently no reciprocal arrangement in place whereby British authorities could extradite American citizens with the same ease; but this is a poor defence.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the current extradition arrangements, it is surely correct in principle that American investigators can seek to try foreign suspects in the States; listening to some you would imagine that this was the first ever case of British citizens being tried abroad, but it is hardly a unique proposal. As it is, Steve at The Sharpener points to this FT piece that suggests that not only do the NatWest Three have a case to answer in the US, but it is conceivable that they could have been extradited under the old, pre-2003 rules.
As for reciprocity (if, indeed, that is a real word), if that is the issue then we could just support our government in its attempts to get Congress to fulfil their side of the bargain, as they may well yet do. Strangely, that is a something the defence campaigners haven’t argued for, but if the complaint is that the Americans are dragging their feet on the issue then this is the most obvious remedy.
For me some of those who have sought to defend the NatWest Three have chosen the wrong battleground. There are sound, solid civil liberties arguments against the 2003 Extradition Act; but in implicitly agreeing with it insofar as it relates to evil terror suspects some of the supporters have abandoned the moral high ground; that is, if they were really on the moral high ground in the first place.
Tuesday 11th July 2006
Still Gleaming
Well that’s that for another four years; the World Cup is over and bang on cue, two days later, here are my topical thoughts. This time around the end of the tournament has the added bonus that Charles Clarke has promised to shut the fuck up from now on, so that in itself is cause for celebration (Update: he’s just broken his word). I successfully fought the virtually non-existent urge to regularly issue predictions and comments on the games as they have gone on and rightly so; if I had then I would surely have been proved wrong at every turn. Now, however, I can fraudulently claim that I always thought Italy would edge it due to their solid defence, and you can’t prove a thing.
Overall I think it has been a pretty average tournament, with few games that really grabbed the attention, but I am glad for Italy. Of course I wanted England to win (though I could never see that happening) and I have also always had a bit of a soft spot for Spain (being a Hispanophile in general and out of sympathy for their perennially underachieving football team in particular); but with both those sides predictably out of the running I wanted the Italians to do it, primarily because I was in Sorrento four years ago when they got knocked out of the 2002 World Cup and I will never forget the eerie silence when we drew into town, how all the television channels had this air of mourning akin to a state funeral. I would have loved to have been back there on Sunday to judge the difference.
I felt very lucky watching England this tournament, I must say; while the commentators and summarisers were scratching their heads wondering where a good performance would come from, I just sat back watching what I had always expected would happen unfold in front of my eyes. I really feel sorry for all those optimists who thought we stood a chance. We didn’t play well simply because we aren’t very good. I know Sven gets a lot of stick, and rightly so, but listening to some you would imagine that he alone has held back the best team in the world. I’m not denying that we could perhaps play better under a different manager, but not by much.
Part of this is down to how we continually exaggerate how good our players are. The summarisers will say that there aren’t many players from other teams that they would want in the England side, but can you imagine many England players that other nations would want? This is symbolised best in “Fanny” Lampard, one of the best players in the world apparently, certainly one of our stars. Everyone seems to agree that he has had a poor tournament but I’m not so sure; I’ve never thought he was that good anyway. Surely the most over rated England player since David Platt, take away his goals (as it appears someone did; the only way he would trouble the scoreboard is if it was positioned directly behind the goal) and he contributes almost nothing to the side.
Yes, we could win the World Cup one day, we prove each competition that we can consistently finish in the top eight (ie. we are equivalent to a Bolton or Blackburn in premiership terms), and we could fluke onwards; if we had performed only badly in the penalties, as opposed to abysmally, then it is conceivable that we could have reached the semis since Portugal missed two of their spot kicks. However, the fact that we could fluke a semi final appearance is not the same as this misguided belief that we should do better, and I have no faith, based upon the comments of the pundits, that a sense of realism will arrive on the scene anytime soon.
“England expect better than the Quarter-Finals” I kept hearing it said, but we have rarely been further, only once on foreign soil. There have been plenty of occasions when we haven’t qualified for the finals at all (eg. the seventies). Then there is the bizarre paradox that when other teams played badly some pundits would announce that it revealed the team simply didn’t have what it takes to win the World Cup, but when England played badly the same pundits would announce that it is irrelevant because “we know we can play better and will come good in the end”. Based on what?
And even when we did get knocked out, after never playing well, we had a ready made scapegoat in “Chico” Ronaldo, who cruelly spoke to the referee and so “got Rooney sent off”; as if players never crowd round the referee in England. Now don’t get me wrong, Ronaldo is a little shit, but Rooney was right to get sent off; if not for the stamp then for stupidly pushing Ronaldo out of the way. It is right to hate Ronaldo, but not to blame him for England’s exit right on schedule. If Ronaldo wasn’t being blamed then of course it was Sven for playing Rooney up front on his own; but many pundits on television, Lee Dixon among them, had hardly a bad word to say about that system after the Ecuador game; the talk was all about how England seemed to have found a formation that they liked and that worked, while I just shook my head, replayed the images in my head of Rooney stranded upfront without any support, and wondered if the experts had seen the same game that I had.
The punditry in general has been entertaining enough, good value and all, but full of the same old hypocrisies and clichés. When the group stages ended there was the typical “great, the knockout round starts here”, “the last 16 is where the good matches get played”, despite the fact that since USA ’94 the group stages have always been better, when three points for a win means it is worth going for victory while in the latter games it seems more important just to avoid defeat. Then there were the complaints about foreigners diving, as if we never see such things in the premiership (although I admit Henry surprised me when he dived against Spain; I can’t imagine he would have been so blatant for Arsenal). But I did find it bizarre to see Alan Shearer complaining about underhand play and players pressuring the referee; there was never a corner taken where he wouldn’t give an opponent a handy shove, and he was certainly never shy about giving the referee the benefit of his experience. As for Alan Ball’s appearances on Match of the Day as a summariser, as someone who has suffered at his hands I think the less said about his expert analysis the better.
But if the punditry has been poor the commentary has been even worse. I can’t think of a good commentator on BBC and ITV at the moment (TV that is: BBC’s FiveLive coverage is fine). I need not waste my time explaining Motty’s failings, but my new bete noir is Guy Mowbray, for serial dreadfulness but particularly for his appalling “Brisbane, Sydney Melbourne, Perth…they’re all wild about Harry” line when Mr Kewell scored against Croatia. I am indebted to Peter Crouch, however, for refusing to do his robotic dance when he scored against Trinidad And Tobago; not that it stopped Clive Tyldesely from saying “he’s scoring with robotic regularity”, but at least it made Clive look even dafter than he otherwise would have done. Sepp Blatter seems to stick his nose into most other aspects of the sport; should we petition him to introduce minimum standards for commentators?
But now thoughts turn to the domestic season, and my decision not to renew my season ticket is looking inspired. Up until Christmas only four City home games remain unchanged for telly (yet), and of those four I am at work for two of them. Can we stop this charade of publishing the fixtures and then waiting for Sky to piss about with them? Why not draft them, hand a copy to Sky, let them get to work and then publish them so we drones can view them for the first time with all the changes already having taken place. As it stands, when the fixtures are first released the only correct reaction is to shrug your shoulders, say “whatever, let’s see” and then to wait a few weeks to see what turns up.
And with Sven having finally gone it is also time to look forward to the exiting era of Steve McClaren, England Head Coach, as choreographed by his publicist. Funny though; looking back at my first full post on this blog I see that I talked then about the FA, the England manager and some bloke called Max Clifford. The more things change…
PostScript: No World Cup post would be complete without a “man of the tournament” award; and I have to go for Graham Poll. Not just because he booked a Croatian player three times in the game against Australia, but also for missing two blatant penalties in that game, making a host of other bad decisions and completely losing the plot in the most entertaining fashion possible. Cheers, Graham.
Saturday 8th July 2006
Who Are You?
So, are we all geared up for the stunning denouement to the latest series of Doctor Who tonight?
Yes, hide behind your sofa; the pulse is racing, heart pounding as we head towards the final episode and something we long feared comes to pass, a terrifying and frightening possibility – something we hoped would and could never happen – becomes a horrific reality, somehow crossing from another dimension into our own.
No, not the Daleks and the Cybermen joining forces – together at last – but the return of Mickey, AKA Noel Clarke once more hawking his questionable acting talents around national television; first witnessed in the later series of Auf Wiedesehen Pet (now there was proof of the law of diminishing returns) and now in far far too many episodes of the new Doctor Who.
To think I wasted good energy cheering when he was apparently stranded for eternity in a parallel universe a couple of episodes back. Never mind; let’s get on with it. Do your worst.
The Obscurer 