Andrew's EU Blog from Brussels

The President of the European Council will undoubtedly become the face of the European Union, but the argument here in Brussels has been whether the EU wants someone to act as the voice and face of Europe, or someone that will simply maintain the functioning of the Union in a chair person sort of role.

The ideal would be a bit of both, but the frontrunner (and widely expected choice) is current Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy (left), who certainly does not have the recognisable face, traits and reputation that the likes of other candidates have, such as Tony Blair...

However, I think that this appointment will be even more historic, with the naming of a female to the post. This is just my opinion, but I think that in the face of actions taken by female MEPs recently to highlight the lack of gender equality in the posts of Commissioners, the heads of state may well nominated one to the post of President, or should I say Presidente?

Yesterday, a group of female MEPs from all countries and political groupings, assembled outside the "Justus Lipsius" building in Brussels sporting shirts, ties and CVs.

British MEP, and EuroParl Vice-President, Diana Wallis (seen above centre in the rather nice orange tie) remarked "you have to be a man to get the high posts here", a point she repeated from a press conference held the day before alongside five other female MEPs demanding fairer representation.

With this in mind, I believe the name to emerge will be that of the 71-year-old former Latvian Prime Minister, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga (below right), whose candidacy I spoke about in a previous blog entry.

While I do not know a great deal about her, but a campaign website (awomantoheadeurope.eu) for her says that she "is a woman of peace, a committed, determined European. She speaks five languages fluently; her culture is that of Europe, her experience is one of commitment in support of Human Rights, the Rule of Law, pluralism and Freedom. She narrowly missed being appointed UN Secretary General in 2006."

Furthermore, it then proceeds to say she "embodies perfectly the female image of Europe whose roots are firmly set in our lands and which have grown with our history".

Her appointment would also carry rather great symbolic importance. Firstly, Latvia is a country formerly considered by the Russians as (perhaps they still consider it to be) within their sphere of influence.

Latvia has opted to join the European Union rather than embrace Russian cooperation, and joined in May 2004. It is also, significantly, a member of NATO, and while it does not currently use the Euro as its currency, it has the declared intention to in the near future.

In the same year we commemorate 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism in Europe, how fitting it would be to see a citizen of a former Communist-state at the helm of Europe? (Not forgetting of course that the current European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek is from Poland...)

While some commentators are refusing to rule out the (undeclared) candidacy of Tony Blair, I am. I think this would be highly unlikely - made even more so by my opinion on who will be appointed to the role of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

As no country can hold both positions, it would certainly rule out Tony Blair if my choice gets the position, and that choice (which may come as a surprise) would be British Labour MP, and current Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.

Now I know what you're thinking: "didn't he declare he didn't want the job"? Yes, he did, but I think that was just to quash the press speculation. Once again I can evoke the TV series Yes, Minister, in particular the transition episode to Yes, Prime Minister when Jim Hacker repeats that he "has no ambitions" for the post, when actually he did (episode details). I think (and I hope) that it's the same trick again here.

The job would mean a lot of responsibility and stature; he (or she)would also be a Vice-President in the Commission and chair the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers.

That said, although he/she has powers to make proposals he or she can only represent the Union in matters where there is an agreed policy between all member states. The post is backed by an External Action Service (EEAS), which assists the new combined High Representative to generate consensus in the European Union and implement that consensus when achieved.

David Miliband has proved himself to be one of the most reliable and popular politicians in the British Cabinet, and has been lauded for his foreign policy credentials by the majority of EU and World leaders. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, even described him as "so vibrant, vital, attractive and smart," continuing to add, "He's a really good guy. And he's so young!"

He clearly is capable of such a role, perhaps too much so because he fancies his chances in the UK as a future replacement of Gordon Brown in Number 10. Perhaps that is the reasoning behind his "declaration of non-intent"...

Whoever is chosen, it will be a historic event in Europe's long history. Naturally I hope that I am correct in my predictions, but should I be wrong, I hope that the two people chosen will move Europe forward now that the Lisbon Treaty has finally be ratified...

What do you think of my predictions? Who do you think will be appointed? Leave a comment below...

Labels: Comment, EU

Posted by Andrew at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments

Now that the dust has settled on the massive Irish 'Yes' vote in the referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, the question of who would eventually become the new President of the European Union has remerged.

Tony Blair, the former UK Labour Prime Minister, is the favourite for this post, which would be created when the Lisbon Treaty comes into action after being ratified by all 27 Member States. Now that Ireland gave their consent, Poland has indicated it too will sign soon, leaving the Czech Republic the only country yet to ratify.

Its perhaps most significant action would be to create the post of EU President to replace the rolling six-month presidency that is in operation at the moment (currently Sweden, Spain will assume control on January 1 2010). This would allow the EU to have a fixed figurehead on the world stage, which it believes will give it much more weight in international relations.

It was The Times last week that reported French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying he believed Blair is the best man for the job and that German opposition from Chancellor Angela Merkel is said to have softened.

Asked if Blair was the only real candidate, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner is quoted as replying: "For the moment, indeed." While the opinions of attitude of France and Germany are crucial to any decision, the future president will have be elected by all 27 EU leaders.

But here is the interesting bit, Blair, who appears to be disliked by all political parties in the Parliament, especially by his supposed allies on the left, and many of the national leaders for the UK's terrible decision to engage in war with Iraq amongst other things, may end up being elected because of the lack of another suitable candidate!

[Imagine how Gordon Brown would feel should his former boss, who he finally displaced, became his 'boss' again...]

Because of the arrangements to share posts between the two most represented political groups in the Parliament, the future president will be either a social democrat or a conservative, and while a few other candidates have emerged (for example former Danish prime minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, and former prime minister of Spain, Felipe Gonzalez) you can hardly say they have the international clout that Blair possesses. The same is true of the potential conservative candidates Jean-Claude Juncker, the current Prime Minister of Luxembourg, and Jan Peter Balkenende, his Dutch equivalent.

Renowned blogger Jean Quatremer (fr) says that such international status will raise the EU to an equal footing on the world stage with the other big players, such as the USA. But symbolically, how would we all feel with a Brit holding the most powerful post in Europe?

For me, this feels rather uncomfortable considering how disengaged and unenthusiastic we have become to engage with the rest of Europe and participate fully in the European Union.

If Blair's appointment would be a catalyst for the UK to integrate further with the EU, i.e. declare the five economic tests passed and adopt the Euro and become a full member of the Schengen area for starters, then I would be very enthusiastic about the appointment.

But I don't think it will be, even more so with the ominous threat of a Conservative Government with anti-EU David Cameron at its head. At the party's conference, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague reaffirmed the desire once in power for a referendum of our own, and consult the public on whether we still want to be part of the EU. Naturally, this would be a catastrophic step and one which I hope will be avoided, but with Blair potentially at the helm of the European ship, you get the feeling it might make the Conservatives even more hostile and more willing to jump ship.

The role of President should be awarded to one of the founding countries, or at least to a country that over the years have proved that it is fully committed to the European cause.

So that would certainly rule out the UK then. But just what is the alternative now?

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, EU, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Comments

It’s not often you hear some good news on the TV bulletins, but today the news was spectacular. Naturally I am not talking about the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, the liberal democrat senator with 47 years service in the US Senate – that is a sad loss and I hope he rests in peace. I am, of course, referring to the news that Big Brother has been axed by Channel 4.

The show, in which a group of people live together in a large house, isolated from the outside world but continuously watched by television cameras, has rapidly gone downhill since its first appearance on UK TV screens back in the year 2000.

What once was a reputable social experiment has become a prolonged freak-show created for “entertainment” and “scandal” rather than any meaningful objective.

I will happily admit that I watched the first series, in which Craig Phillips (the new face of B&Q) emerged victor, and I will furthermore admit that I enjoyed the show and watched it everyday. It was a fascinating show for me, seeing how a well-chosen representative sample of the population behaves in isolation and controlled conditions. I particularly enjoyed the hour-long shows at the weekend which were psychological assessments of the contestant’s behaviour that week.

I continued watching it for series two in 2001, which eventually saw the Irish homosexual Brian Dowling crowned the victor. Series three was the start of the downfall with the inclusion of Jade Goody who was (I hope) is unique. The “regime” in charge of the tasks turned up the harshness and introduced the consequence of failing the weeks’ task being the house had a food budget equivalent to Goody’s IQ: zero.

I didn’t see the end of that series – enough was enough. I’ve not watched it since and have continuously become disillusioned and annoyed to see Big Brother exploits / sex tales / cheating or whatever on the front pages of the newspapers. Arguably, the people who will suffer the most from this is the ‘red-top’ tabloid journalists – they might now actually have to find some ‘NEWS’… [In fact, little side note, while at Sheffield, an email circular was forwarded to us journalism students from the Sun requesting someone to watch the show for them all day, every day. The stated pay was £10/hour…I didn’t respond favourably.]

Big Brother today has descended into a farce, with contestants chosen deliberately to cause fights, conflicts and controversy. Former partners of contestants have been introduced to “entertain” AKA increase tension and contestants always enter the house with ulterior motives of trying to nail that sleazy tabloid photoshoot or nude magazine spread on their release from the house. The celebrity spin-off was perhaps worse, but at least the contestants were doing it for (almost) the right reason – charity – although many did it to try to reinvent their careers.

It no longer is a social experiment, it was a poor excuse of a programme, and gradually the viewers have cottoned onto this, with viewer figures dropping from their high of 10 million per night average in 2002 down to a relatively miserly level of 2.2 million per night this series.

It was only a matter of time before it was axed and I applaud the executives at Channel 4 for finally calling it a day. Announcing the move, the channel’s director of television Kevin Lygo said the show "had reached a natural end point on Channel 4 and it's time to move on".

It needs mentioning though that it still attracts more viewers than most Channel 4 programmes - night after night – which naturally brings in a lot of advertising and consequent revenue. Therefore to drop the show is taking a massive risk. They is no guarantee that the programmes that will replace it will be as successful and bring in as much money.

Nonetheless I am delighted by this news. I cannot remember the last time I even watched a programme on Channel 4, largely because I feel its credibility has fallen with every series it commissions.

Unfortunately, it will be on our screens for one final series next year, but after that it should be gone. Of course it could appear on another TV channel, but it was interesting to remark how quickly Channel 5, who I thought it would be, denied they would make any such move.

I hope to God the BBC won’t take it on, but I wouldn’t totally rule out ITV taking it on; after all they have enough rubbish on that channel what with X-Factor, Dancing on Ice, Britain’s Got Talent and I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here…

Labels: Comment

Posted by Andrew at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments

Wow, I can hardly believe it. England have won the Ashes, beating Australia by 197 runs in the final test match at the Oval to win the series 2-1.

Despite having scored less centuries, and taken fewer wickets over the five matches it was England who came out on top. I believe overall Australia were the better team but England won the key moments – indeed they received an disproportional amount of bad umpire decisions in their favour including a few LBW decisions in the last match – but let’s not talk about those.

Instead let’s focus on what a truly wonderful and action-packed series it was. I shall look back on the series and remember the final hour of play in the first test in Cardiff, watching the two final batsmen for England (not known for their batting prowess – especially Monty Panesar) holding on for an hour against the Australian bowling attack to clinch an unlikely (and to be honest undeserved) draw.

England were phenomenal in the second test at Lords, where we lost so horrifically back in the 2005 series, unable to cope with the bowling of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne. Rain prevented a result in the third test at Edgbaston, and unfortunately the rain didn’t prevent a result at Headingley in the fourth test where England were, in a word: humbled, and to add a second word if I may: thrashed.

Heading to the Oval this week with the score 1-1, England HAD to win else Australia would retain the smallest trophy in sport. Ravi Bopara had underperformed and was rightly replaced for the finale. The England selectors (who normally haven’t made the best choices) this time gambled and their gamble paid off in calling up the South-African born Jonathan Trott. He scored 119 on test debut and will share the plaudits with Stuart Broad, who I’ve admired for a long time, and finally fulfilled the promised with a 5-wicket-haul conceding only 37 runs in that spell. Phenomenal.

It was fitting that Andrew Flintoff (above right) should sign off in style running out Aussie captain Ricky Ponting in the final innings, and credit should be extended the Graeme Swann who deservedly took the final winning wicket of Mike Hussey.

Player of the series however was surely England captain Andrew Strauss. I was unsure he was captain material and I have well and truly eaten those words. He finished top run scorer and proved to make some brilliant decisions that won matches.

In a nutshell: well done England, well done Australia. England had the superior bowling attack; Australia certainly had the more consistent batting attack. A cracking series, a superb result and a source of great entertainment. Shame we’ll most likely get beaten when the urn is contended down under next year in 2010.

Andrew Strauss summed England’s performance this series rather well I thought when he said: “When we were bad, we were very bad, but when we were good, we were good enough.”

Good Enough. Well done chaps.

Labels: Comment, Sport

Posted by Andrew at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments

Football fans around the country rejoice: the new season has arrived!

On the eve of the eager-anticipated kick off of the 2009/10 season, the chaps at BBC Sport have produced a rather fascinating feature which shows that the teams that will ply their trade in the Premiership this season really are global compositions (click for link).

It shows, rather shockingly, the difference between now and a decade ago when obviously the number of players born outside of the UK playing in the Premier League were vastly outnumbered by home-grown talent while this picture is somewhat reverse nowadays. While this makes the league an increasingly diverse and talented league, I do worry that as a result our English national side will rapidly decline in quality because we’re not giving English players as much opportunity in the first team, unlike the plethora of Scottish players making up every team across the border. But anyway, that’s a different blog post…

Ahead of the kick-off I shall use this opportunity to cast my predictions over the season ahead. Ok, so it’s a very cliché remark, but it will be closer than ever this season. The biggest story this summer was the £80 million transfer of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid and this will be a massive loss not only to the league but also to Manchester United. That said, I believe the arrival of Antonio Valencia from Wigan will proof to be a great addition, as to will be the arrival of Michael Owen on a free transfer. As I argued previously, I believe this is a gamble well worth taking.

As for the other teams: Arsenal have lost Kolo Touré and Emmanuel Adebayor both to Manchester City and have only added the young Belgian defender Thomas Vermaelen. Selling those two players was good business for Arsenal but I’m not convinced they have done enough to replace them. Perhaps Theo Walcott and Nicklas Bendtner will now get prolonged spells in the first team, which will be good, but I cannot see them achieving higher than fourth this season. Arsène Wenger is building for the future so perhaps next year…

£12 million was far too cheap for the sale of Gareth Barry to Manchester City, but Aston Villa have reinvested the money smartly in my opinion purchasing Stewart Downing from relegated Middlesbrough. I’ve been quite fond of Villa and their rise through the league. Martin O'Neill is a superb manager, would love to see him take the reins at Manchester United when Sir Alex finally does decide to abdicate his Old Trafford throne although I hope that doesn’t happen soon!

Besides the arrival of the Russian Yuri Zhirkov, it is same old, same old Chelsea. I expect another strong team but their manager has yet to experience the Premier League. Retaining the services of captain John Terry was imperative, but I worry about the lack of young blood in that team and the amount of cheating divers… Cole, Drogba, Mikel, Ballack to name just a few…

Getting striker Jô back on another loan from Manchester City was smart business from Everton and so long as they manage to keep Joleon Lescott in their defence they will have another strong season. Manager David Moyes never spends lots which is testament to his managerial ability. I think they’ll do well again, as will Fulham under the watchful eye of Roy Hodgson. Their best addition I think has been the South Korean Seol Ki-Hyeon who hopefully will bring as much energy to the team as compatriot Park Ji-Sung does for Manchester United.

I think this could be Liverpool’s year, but I still think United will be the team to beat. The sale of Xabi Alonso and the arrival of Alberto Aquilani as his replacement was a great piece of business, less so was the purchase of Glen Johnson from Portsmouth – a desperate attempt to inject some English talent into a Spanish side.

Manchester City’s problem will be how to play all of their players. They have opened the chequebook and signed anyone that is half decent. With no offer of Champions League football the moves of Emmanuel Adebayor (Arsenal), Carlos Tévez (Man Utd), Gareth Barry (Aston Villa), Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn) and Kolo Touré (Arsenal) were money motivated. If Tevez didn’t like sitting on the bench at Old Trafford then what he is going to be like at Manchester City – unbelievable.

I hope they don’t well just as I hope Real Madrid flop, because it will maintain the time-honoured tradition that money does not buy you success. I think by January that there will be a queue of strikers at the club demanding they play and I just cannot see how manager Mark Hughes will manage this. On the contrary, Gianfranco Zola has done a cracking job at West Ham United and Harry Redknapp at Tottenham Hotspur. But this season’s surprise package I think will be Sunderland with their newly appointed manager Steve Bruce at the helm. Already he has made his mark and the signings of Darren Bent (Tottenham) and Lee Cattermole (Wigan) will prove to be good ones (both in my fantasy teams!).

Burnley, Birmingham City and Wolves who all made the step-up from the Championship will be favourites for relegation, but will be joined this year in the battle for survival I think by Blackburn, Wigan and Portsmouth.

As a result this is how I think the table will look next summer:

1. Manchester United
---
2. Liverpool
3. Chelsea
4. Arsenal
5. Aston Villa
6. Tottenham Hotspur
7. Everton
8. West Ham United
9. Manchester City
10. Fulham
11. Sunderland
12. Stoke City
13. Hull City
14. Bolton Wanderers
15. Blackburn Rovers
16. Wigan Athletic
17. Birmingham City
---
18. Portsmouth
19. Wolverhampton Wanderers
20. Burnley

Labels: Comment, Sport

Posted by Andrew at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Comments

All those familiar with British TV will instantly recognise a distinct element of sarcasm when I call ITV a 'shining beacon of television excellence', because it is far from that. During an advert break this evening they showed a promotional clip from an upcoming documentary in which Alan Titchmarsh goes behind the scenes at The Royal Windsor Horse Show (in case you’re interested: All The Queen's Horses, Sunday 19 July 2009, 8-9pm).

But during the same advert break they went too far, describing the break-up of Katie Price and Peter Andre as the event that shook the nation; all in the cause of promoting their “exclusive” interview with the former model.

I know (all very well) that relationship break-ups are not nice events but appearing on prime-time TV to “tell my side of the story” is hardly going to aide the pain and misery.

The couple originally met and began courting after appearing together on ITV’s floundering reality show I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here! in 2004 and married in September the following year. The couple introduced a baby into the world in June 2005 and were in publicity-terms a “super-couple” with their own TV-shows, magazine deals, and multiple appearances running the London Marathon together in 2009 to name one example. On 11 May this year their management company announced their nearly-four year marriage was over (OK! article).

Appearing on ITV now is just petty and I’m sure that it is an occasion that she will opportunistically make a bit of cash. Peter Andre has not done the same and is content to remain outside of the media glare in this difficult time for them both. What makes her appearance even more detestable is that she is due to speak to the despicable and disgraced sacked-editor Piers Morgan.

All things considered therefore I am very disappointed to see this in the TV schedule; even if it is ITV. Heck, instead of this they should put even more shows featuring Alan Titchmarsh or even put that Britain’s Got Talent cabaret show on the air.

Unfortunately in the case of All The Queen's Horses, I’ll have to wait until next Sunday for that :-(

Labels: Comment

Posted by Andrew at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments

As I write, the former Liverpool, Real Madrid and more recently Newcastle United striker Michael Owen is undergoing a medical at Manchester United ahead of signing for the Premier League Champions.

This news has come as a great shock to myself and I’m sure the many millions of Manchester United fans around the world, but looking beyond the English strikers’ past, this could well be a very shrewd acquisition by Sir Alex Ferguson.

For many, the fact that Michael Owen, now 29 years of age, first made a name for himself in the red shirt of rivals Liverpool means that he will not be received with open arms. After all not many have played for both clubs, with the last being Paul Ince, and Manchester United fans will know what an impact Ince made in the red shirt of the Champions…

The major concern I have with the move the likelihood of Owen contributing for a large number of matches throughout the season. Since signing for Newcastle United from Real Madrid for £16m in 2005, Owen has only managed 76 appearances in the black and white shirt over four seasons and has been sidelined with numerous injuries. Blackburn manager Sam Allardyce, who managed Owen in his short spell in charge at Newcastle, commented recently that he would not even consider signing the striker now because he was too injury-prone (article).

Nonetheless, his goalscoring record speaks for itself. In 297 games for Liverpool, he scored 158 goals, averaging at 1.88 goals per game. When he moved to Real Madrid naturally his first team chances was restricted, but in one season he still managed to find the net 16 times in 43 appearances. And yet, despite his four injury-plagued seasons on Teesside, Owen still managed to score 30 goals.

Should Owen be fit, he will undoubtedly score goals.

Owen, however, is not the same player as Carlos Tevez was. He is absolutely not the same player as Cristiano Ronaldo was. He would bring a different style to the Manchester United frontline – that is if he passes the very stringent medical examination that I am sure the Red Devils’ management will insist upon. Owen used to be quick (remember his goal in the 2002 World Cup against Argentina) and at 29 he won’t be as quick as he once was. With that said he has a vast amount of experience and will be a terrific player for the youngsters Federico Macheda and Danny Wellbeck to mature around.

The best part of this possible transfer however is the cost. Owen is of course available on a free transfer as his contract at Newcastle expired on Wednesday morning. Reports from Sky Sports today suggests that the potential deal would see Owen accept a massive reduction in his salary (which priced too many other clubs out of the race for his services this summer) and his wage would be constituted by massive bonuses based on appearances.

This would be a superb arrangement as Owen would essentially only be paid if he played. Combine this with the fact that he would not cost Sir Alex Ferguson anything in terms of transfer fee and you start to see the sense this deal makes. It is a gamble with very little to loose.

You might recall that Ferguson also took similar gambles on injury-prone players in the past, most notably Laurent Blanc, Teddy Sheringham and of course a certain Eric ‘the King’ Cantona (left). He also managed to get a decent season or two from the aging Juan Sebastian Veron and more recently some tremendous and important performances from Henrik Larsson when he joined on loan from Helsingborg in December 2006.

Sure he used to play for Liverpool, and sure he has had his problems with injuries in the past, but just those names proof that if anyone can get something out of an injury-prone aging player then it is Fergie. The fact there is no transfer fee involved is yet another bonus and even if he doesn’t play many matches in a United shirt he won’t be a massive burden on the wage bill and such a financial flop – aka Fabien Barthez.

Michael Owen therefore is a gamble worth taking.

But it is important to add also that he should not be the ONLY addition to the United attacking line. The arrival of Antonio Valencia for £16m from Wigan Athletic this week is a step in the right direction but Fergie will need to add a few more high profile names. With £64m burning a hole in the pocket it is likely to be a busy summer in the transfer market at Old Trafford. (It is a real shame that Karim Benzema won’t be joining.)

EDIT (18.55GMT): Michael Owen signs two-year contract at Manchester United.

Labels: Comment, Manchester United, Sport

Posted by Andrew at 1:36 PM | Permalink | Comments

I'm in shock. I'm speechless. I'm utterly distraught.

The LA Times has reported that Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, has died in hospital in California after suffering a cardiac arrest at the house he was occupying in preparation of his upcoming massive 50-date tour in London.

On it's website it reads: "Updated at 3:15 p.m.: Pop star Michael Jackson was pronounced dead by doctors this afternoon after arriving at a hospital in a deep coma, city and law enforcement sources told The Times".

Earlier in the day, paramedics had been called to a home in the 100 block of Carolwood Drive off Sunset Boulevard where the King of Pop had rented the Bel-Air home for $100,000 a month. It has been described as a French chateau estate built in 2002 with seven bedrooms, 13 bathrooms, 12 fireplaces and a theater. The chateau is located only a short distance from the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center where he later died.

This news is absolutely devastating. I loved Michael Jackson as a child and I still love Michael Jackson now. His music always created happiness and has transcended generations. I am sure it will continue in the same vein for many many years to come and so it is deeply upsetting that the man himself is no longer with us. He meant so much to so many people; Jessica Yellin of CNN has even described him as the "Princess Diana of America".

RIP Michael Jackson. 50 years young. I will moonwalk in memory of you.

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs

Posted by Andrew at 11:39 PM | Permalink | Comments

I imagine a lot of you will have already seen or heard about this video, but I think it is a simply wonderful illustration of why Barack Obama is a great credit to America as their president.

While answering questions at a session in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Obama took a question from "the gentleman in a suit" who explained that he had brought his little girl with him to see Obama and that she was missing school because of it. The response of Obama is perhaps unusual but proves he is more than a president; he is a father and wonderful role-model.

The world's most famous absence note (CNN/YouTube)

He writes little Kennedy a note excusing her for missing the final day at school, even joking that Kennedy was nice name (reference to former president?). "To Kennedy's teacher, please excuse the absence, she's with me, Barack Obama" reads the note, written neatly on the back of one of his prepared speech pages.

Thank you Obama, for proving that humanity still exists in politics. I wonder whether any other US president would have done that...

Labels: Comment

Posted by Andrew at 1:03 AM | Permalink | Comments

Since the announcement of Cristiano Ronaldo’s record £80m transfer to Real Madrid, Manchester United have inevitably been linked to lots of stars as replacements. Here is how I hope the Premier League Champions line up at Wembley to face Chelsea in the Community Shield on August 9th:

Goalkeeper:

You really cannot beat Edwin van der Sar. He may be 40 years of age in October, but he was a formidable goalkeeper last season and deservedly entered the record books for a clean-sheet record of 1,311 minutes (11 consecutive games). Hopefully we can still get a few more seasons from Edwin before he retires, which should be long enough to usher Ben Foster through the ranks.

Defence:

To be honest there really is not much that needs to be done now. The aforementioned run of clean sheets proved that the United defensive unit is effective and can overcome injuries within the unit, with Jonny Evans proving himself more than capable as a stand-in for Rio Ferdinand alongside Nemanja Vidić. However, in my ‘dreamteam’ I’ve preserved the Ferdinand-Vidić because it is the strongest partnership in the heart of defence, but Evans deservedly takes his place on my ‘dream’ subs bench.

Ferguson needs to realise that Gary Neville’s day are over at United. At 34 years of age he has been displaced at right-back by the 18 year-old Rafael de Silva who has been impressive every time I have seen him play, and scored a spectacular volley in the 90th minute of only his seventh game for the club (the 2–1 defeat to Arsenal in November 2008). With this in mind, Ferdinand, Vidić, Giggs or Carrick should be considered to take over the club captain’s armband.

Midfield:

As you would expect, United will miss Ronaldo’s presence but I feel they already have enough talent to fill the void. Particularly in the form of his Portuguese compatriot Nani, who has seen first-team action very limited this year as you would expect being second in line to the World Player of the Year. I hope that Nani will see more action this year but on the grounds that he has not played enough, he takes his place on the bench.

I have instead opted for the South Korean Park Ji-Sung, who as many of you will probably know, I am a huge fan. Every time he plays he runs his socks off and gives everything for the team, normally to the extent he has to be subbed off! He has grabbed a few important goals himself, most notably against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, but if he can contribute more goals it will go a long way to filling the 30/40 goals a season Ronaldo somehow always recorded.

In the centre of the park, Michael Carrick and Darren Fletcher have proved to be a very effective unit with Fletcher taking the more attacking approach and Carrick remaining predominantly defensive yet still recording goals from long-range.

The rumoured acquisition of Wigan Athletic’s Ecuadorian midfielder Antonio Valencia would be an excellent move and add pace to the wings. He is rumoured to be priced in the region of £21m which does seem to be a lot of money, but he could provide to be a superb addition to the team. He also has age on his side being only 23, but I fear that his arrival could further deny Nani his chance and could perhaps force him to look elsewhere.

Attack:

Wayne Rooney has often been deployed on the wing in a very attacking mode and I have stuck with this because in time I think this will reap rewards. It has already worked wonders with Rooney’s techniques and has massively benefited his game. Unfortunately this move by Ferguson in the latter part of the season has meant that his goal tally has dried up, but with such an attacking role it will surely only be a matter of time before the goals will come.

As for Dimitar Berbatov, he’s not impressed me enough since his £30.75m move from Tottenham Hotspur on deadline day back in September 2008 to make the starting 11 and must settle for a place on the bench. But that is certainly not the case for Carlos Tévez. Just like Park, he gives his all for the team and you really cannot fault his effort. He has won over the United fans and is a true fan-favourite with some very important goals in the title run-in.

His loan deal with United expires this summer and there are many issues regarding who ‘owns’ the player and £25m is apparently the amount that United would have to pay to own the player outright. It should be the first priority for United to get Carlos Tevez to sign on the dotted line on a permanent contact with the Red Devils.

The sale of Ronaldo has finally also given United the opportunity to turn their interest into a confirmed transfer and bring the extremely talented young French striker Karim Benzema from Olympique Lyonnais. He has been very impressive in the matches I’ve seen him play, he has Champions League experience, and despite only being 21 years of age he is a regular in the French national team. If United can sign him for less than £30m that would be an absolute steal.

With Tevez and Benzema up front and with Rooney and Park contributing with attacking runs from the wings, that would make a wonderful attacking front-line and I believe would contribute more goals than last season. The defence needs to be preserved so all approaches for Vidić need to be emphatically rejected, and Foster needs to see more first-team action next season too.

And so the three main objectives for Sir Alex Ferguson this summer are: 1) sign Carlos Tevez to a permanent contract, 2) remove Gary Neville as club captain and 3) sign Karim Benzema and Antonio Valencia. With that team I would expect the Champions to retain that privileged status this time next year.

Labels: Comment, Manchester United, Sport

Posted by Andrew at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Comments

Real Madrid have proved that money talks in football. They concluded a £59m deal for Brazilian Kaka at the start of this week (article) and this morning they received the green-light from Manchester United for the £80m capture of World Player of the Year Cristiano Ronaldo (article).

While these perhaps are great coups for Real Madrid fans, these two deals have simultaneously ushered in the era of fantasy football.

It absolutely bewilders me how much clubs pay for players, especially in the current economic climate. Real Madrid has always been a club that spends big, and yet rarely finds success. It is the personification of the phrase buying success – expect the only difference is that they cannot buy success and have always been and will continue to be second-best compared to rivals Barcelona. Even with Ronaldo and Kaka - who while exceptional players in their own right, will not single-handedly transform the Real Madrid team.

The Real president, Florentino Pérez, has proven many occasions that he has more money than brains. In his previous reign as president he spent a fortune on players such as Zinedine Zidane (£44m from

He clearly has no longer has the will to play for the United shirt. He illustrated this prior to the Champions League final in Rome last month when he declared that Manchester United was his home and did not want to play anywhere else and now four weeks later he’s off to Madrid. Many will criticise his on-field antics and they are right to do so. He has been awful this year and quite frankly a shadow of his former self compared to previous seasons. The fact he was voted World Player of the Year was a total shock and it is clearly been a title that has gone to his head.

Just like the David Beckham transfer to Real Madrid for £25m back in 2003, Ferguson has done exactly the right thing. The heart wasn’t there so he’s no longer playing there. The gift of £80m certainly sweetens the deal and hopefully Ferguson will be given that money to invest in more talent that will actually be prepared to play for the United shirt.

The crazy amounts of money being thrown around these days is quite frankly disgraceful and irresponsible especially in such hard financial times when clubs around the country and across Europe are going out of business, and could be saved with just a week’s wages of one of their ‘stars’.

Kaka is an exceptional player, a team-player at that, but even he is not worth £56m. But full credit to him, he’s making the move for the right reasons and in the press conference (watch below) showed that his club came first by saying he made the move to help out AC Milan financially.

Labels: Comment, Sport

Posted by Andrew at 4:03 PM | Permalink | Comments

So there it is, Barcelona have beaten Manchester United 2-0 in the Champions League Final in Rome and to some up my feelings I'm gutted.

That was not Manchester United out there, they never got going, never played like they have all season. Playing the long-ball over the top on a soaking-wet pitch was never going to work and they were completely outplayed in the centre of the park, something that has not happened to that extent this season.

The United team have played 67 times this season and have only lost seven matches, which is an incredible stat. You could argued they were jinxed from the offset as no team has retained the Champions League in its history and Manchester United never play well in their away strip.

Another incredible stat is that Barcelona had scored 157 goals in all competitions this season - they were always going to score tonight. But it is the manner of the goals that is really really disappointing, with the first goal from Samuel Eto'o coming COMPLETELY against the run of play in what was Barcelona's first actual attack of the game.

The second game from Lionel Messi, who most are proclaiming the best in the world. I disagree. I think he's horrendously over-rated. The same cannot be said for Andres Inisesta and Xavi in the midfield - they were both absolutely sublime and are worthy winners.

Barcelona have been the best team in Europe this season and deserve their win tonight - can be no complaints. It would have been nice if United turned in a performance like we saw week in week out in the Premier League, but alas it was not meant to be.

I really wish I was a betting man as I had a feeling today it would be 2-0 Barcelona with Eto and Messi the scorers - guess that sums up my day too.

Desperately disappointed with the defeat but Barcelona were the better team on the night.

It was men against boys out there, and unfortunately not the 'dream final' that I and everyone else wanted.

Labels: Comment, Manchester United, Sport

Posted by Andrew at 9:44 PM | Permalink | Comments

So here we are, Eurovision 2009, and I think the UK might genuinely have a chance with their entry this year. Who knows? Stranger things have happened: Follow my comments as the evening unfolds below:

Notable Final Scores: 1st: Norway 387pts; 2nd: Iceland 218pts; 3rd Azerbaijan 207pts; 4th Turkey 177pts; 5th United Kingdom 173pts; 8th France 107pts.

10.05 Relive the victorious entry now: watch the Norwegian entry from Alexander Rybak below:

00.18 Ok, it's all over for another year, and I really cannot remember who the winning Norwegian singer/violinist looks like! Suggestions in the comments at the bottom please! In the meantime, thanks for following me tonight, hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Until next year in Oslo, Adjø, god natt og passe.

00.11 Well I for one am chuffed. My top-two both finished in the top-three. Well done to Norway, off to Oslo will go the Eurovision bandwagon. The French commentators are keen to sign off and cry, no doubt because they finish so far behind the UK, guess that must really hurt. Let's here the winning performance once again.

00.09 Norway have won, and they're also the last to give their points. Well done to Norway, running away with the competition in what is a new competition record. The UK was beaten down to fifth place by Turkey in the final two sets of results but it is still an excellent result.

00.07 Looks like the UK is going to finish fourth. Not bad at all.

00.00 Will Ireland give their neighbours 12 points? No, but we'll take the 10 though, cheers!

23.58 Excellent. The French commentators have just described being behind the UK and Bosnia as being a "horrible dream". Time to wake up...

23.51 Haha absolutely love the dismay in the sighs of the France 3 commentators when they get given two or three points. Be grateful for what you get! Another eight for the UK from Albania, and another eight from Serbia, wow thanks. Can we make the top-three? Perhaps that's too optimistic... Oh and you've got to love the hateful oh la la la la la when the UK outscore France...

23.47 Thank you Greece! 12 points for the UK! Get in! How long has it been since we last got a 12 points? Anyone know? That confirms it, this evening has been a success for us British :-)

23.43 Half-way through the voting and the top-three is all-but decided: Norway, Iceland, Turkey. UK are doing very well and are beating France, much to the dismay of the commentary team I'm listening to - good stuff!

23.40 What the heck is that idiot from Blue doing presenting the UK vote?! One point for France, oh they were not happy with that. Seven for Germany and the 12 points for Turkey, interesting choices UK.

23.36 Andorra to give 12 points to Spain? Oh yes... so predictable sometimes...

23.32 Russia give 10 to France - the commentators are very happy with that! Another 12 from them and another 12 from Latvia to Norway though, so it definitely looks like it's off to Oslo next year... But where is this 12 points for the UK?!

23.29 Nor there, 12 points to Norway from Iceland. Oh and the French have given us four points - how generous.

23.27 Norway get 12 points from neighbours Sweden, pas de surprise there...

23.23 Another 10 points, this time from Malta. 23 from four countries, and we've already passed our total from the last few years! French commentators are again bemused with only three points from their even more special 'friends' Germany, who give the UK another eight points. Really looking good for the UK, even better for Norway. Will the UK get a douze points?

23.22 The French commentators are not happy at all that Belgium, their 'friends' gave them only one point... Norway gets another 12 from Belarus. Heading to Oslo already?

23.20 Spain gives 10 to the UK - wow this could be our night! Norway gets 12...

23.10 Voting closed. Now let's see if neighbours will vote for each other again and leave the UK all alone at the foot of the table... Oh we have another spectacle to sit through, might use this opportunity to grab some food then.

22.55 Voting open: 15 minute break now for everyone to submit their vote - can that really be enough? Oh yeah the public don't 'actually' have a vote.

Anyway my top three (as I can't vote for UK): Iceland, Norway, Malta.

22.51 Well Spain have completed the proceedings. Their entry was far more 'normal' than it was last year and wasn't as bad as Finland's - really why dance music?!

22.47 URGH! Dance music. Thank you Finland, was going so well...

22.45 Hairs on the back of the neck standing on end, what a song. Despite my hatred for Andrew Lloyd Webber, he's done well this year. Well done Jade Ewen, it was your time (pun intended), excellent job. Even the French commentary team admitted (perhaps begrudgingly) that our entry is strong this year. At least we can't finished last with that, surely?

22.42 It's time for the UK. Come on!

22.41 According to the Romanian entry Balkan girls like to party like nobody, like nobody, like nobody. That I did not know. What I also did not know is that Romania has a very good entry this year. Could the contest be heading to Budapest next year? I think not but not bad nonetheless. Like that one.

22.37 Ukraine's entry wants us to be her Valentine - "anti-crisis girl". I think they're playing for the male vote somewhat with the costumes but what's going on with the giant cogs and the male dancers dressed as gladiators? This might just be the odd entry of the year, à la Lordi, and we all know what happened to them...

22.32 Oh now this I like, Norway. Power-ballad violin solos, press-ups, backflips and amusing lyrics. The singer looks familiar too, can't think where from. The Nordic countries (not Sweden) are impressing me this year!

22.25 It's not world-class but what on earth is that dancer wearing. Looks like an all-in-one green sequin suit - bet that's comfortable.

22.24 They boasted in the song that it was the 'best in the world' but sorry Turkey I'm not convinced. Do we have a Shakira wannabe here too? Has to be one of the favourites this one. Albania next, and let's be honest even if the song was world-class, they won't win...

22.20 Well I would be lying if I said I expected that from Germany, what a shock. Seems very inappropriate for them but heck that could very well win. We have a Ricky Martin wannabe here and I don't like it. Saying that I would disqualify him solely because of those tight silver trousers. Enough said.

22.17 That's more like it - good ole Denmark with the pop-ballad, the waistcoats and what looks like Simon Pegg on keyboards. This could win, it's real Eurovision material. Just needs a few more fist-clenching power strides... Oh and now he's on the knees and we have fireworks. Yes, real contender.

22.09 Malta and 'Chiara' are certainly contenders after that performance. Politically speaking, it's an interesting choice, with the lyrics 'What if we could be free'.

22.05 One word for Moldolva: interesting.

22:00 Bosnia & Herzegovina are being represented by a band whose promotional photo makes them look like Coldplay. They only found their singer through adverts in local newspapers and magazines but amazingly they have been a supporting act for the Rolling Stones. Not a bad entry at all - still Iceland for me so far.

21:55 Is Azerbaijan really part of Europe? Have to admit their song is real Eurovision material so certainly not out of place there...

21:52 After Armenia's strange contribution here we are, Russia, and interestingly a Ukrainian is singing for them... In terms of geopolitics the Ukraine still belongs to Russian when it comes to singing it would seem. Her name is Anastasia Prihodko and apparently she sings quite unordinary minor songs and folk songs in both the Russian and Ukranian languages. Her entry sounded rather ordinary though...

21:43 I don't like Greece's entry already -please oh please don't let this win!

21:42 Why oh why is Iceland's entry singing in English? If I was in charge I would rule that all countries sing in their native language - sure there would be language barriers but surely this beautiful range of languages is what makes Europe so unique and diverse? Nonetheless that was an excellent entry, my favourite so far. Next is the favourite Greece, great...

21:35 Is it me or is Portugal's guitar entrance rather similar to that of Green Day's 'Time of your Life'?

21:28 France’s wasn’t bad at all, best I’ve heard from them in years. Cannot say the same about Sweden and Croatia’s entries though, just sound like a load of shouting to me…

21:16 Wasn’t overly impressed again with the Israeli entry, they may have won the contest for their country before but I’m not sure that will be good enough – long way to go though. France is next and they actually boast a proper singer this year and are very enthusiastic about her success.

21:04 Well I finally have managed to find an online stream and was just in time to catch the end of the Lithuanian entry, didn’t sound too bad but from number one it will always be hard for them to leave such a lasting impression. Next Israel.

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, Eurovision

Posted by Andrew at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Comments

In order to launch the opening this weekend of a new Parisian architectural exhibition the Figaro newspaper conducted a survey amongst its readers in which they were asked “in an ideal Paris, which structure would they like to see disappear”! The results are surprising to say the least.

On top with 35.4% of the vote was the Tour Montparnasse, a 210 metre-tall, 59-floor, black-coloured tower that dominates the southern Parisian skyline. I disagree with the French public here because I quite like this building, and much prefer the view from the top than that offered by the Eiffel Tower (read blog entry)*.

While I do accept that it does somewhat dominate the area and isn’t the most attractive-looking building in the world, it is certainly not as ugly as some of the others on offer, such as the Pompidou Centre* or the Finance Ministry*.

Neither of those however is as horrible as my personal choice: The Finance Ministry’s neighbour out at Bercy, the Palais Omnisport*.

I can safely say that this is one of the most bizarre buildings I’ve ever seen. It is actually, for those who don’t know, a concert arena, and quite a large one at that as it can accommodate between 7,000 to 17,000 people depending on the event.

It was designed by a team of architects (For Neil: Andrault-Parat, Prouvé and Guvan) and its doors were finally opened to the public in 1984. I don’t quite know how else to describe it other than it looks like a giant octagonal molehill.

When I came across this monstrocity on one of my strolls I couldn’t quite believe what I was seeing. It hardly suits the area, then again I challenge you to name somewhere that it would fit it – perhaps that’s the attraction?

It’s walls are covered in grass which is alive and not even artifical, which raises the question of just how is this maintained? The angle of the grass-covered walls is so steep that no sit-down lawnmower is going to be able to make the climb to the top and at those angles no-one is going to be able to cut it manually without developing severe ankle and knee injuries, if not worse. The solution however is therefore quite novel and ingenious – they use a motorised mower that climbs the mount via pulley systems.

That, and the fact that the venue attracts a lot of big-name acts to Paris (Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, Iron Maiden, The Cure, Radiohead, Oasis, Kiss, Green Day to name just a few), is the best I can say about this structure. That would get my vote and considering the selection on offer I am amazed that it only got 6.84% of the vote.

The survey however did not include the Eiffel Tower as one of the options. It would be interesting to see if the Tour Montparnasse would still come out on top if that was the case…

Click here for full results (in french)*

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs

Posted by Andrew at 6:56 PM | Permalink | Comments

It may have been the week that the G20 met and NATO celebrated its 60th anniversary, but a hot topic in the French press last week was the shocking revelation that a police officer had uploaded a video of a viscous assault onto the social networking site Facebook.

I have only just today seen this video and besides being in a state of disgust and shock, it unfortunately resonates somewhat with my horrible experience. Le Figaro even revealed on Monday that the victim is a current student at Sciences Po in Paris.

Anyway, the six-minute video shows a student being surrounded and set upon by four youths while on a night-bus in the north of central Paris late one night last December. The youths, after emptying his pockets, can be seen setting upon fellow passengers as they tried to intervene, which resulted in a fracas on board.

While this all commotion was taking place behind him the driver remained impassive and continued the journey. At the next bus stop, the driver pulls over and the youths leave the bus, throwing more punches in the process. One is even seen to return to land one last blow.

The RATP transport authority (who operates the public transport in Paris) says that its bus drivers have explicit orders not to intervene in defence of passengers but to stay at the wheel and press a silent alarm button. Whatever happened to the ‘customers come first’ business morale?

Naturally the video has since been removed from Facebook, but not until after the media had picked it up. They are naturally (and rightly so) calling for the police officer to be charged for releasing this video, presumably done so for his own amusement. The police have said that two of the youths were arrested on the spot after the driver called for help and a third has since been detained, so I guess that means the fourth is still out there. I hope that he is found and they all get the sentences they deserve.

If you would like to watch this video click here* (please be advised that it is quite disturbing).

But besides the issue of the leaked video, which is very serious in itself – especially if the case is still open – I believe this constitutes further proof that security cameras work on public transport.

It truly is amazing how one event can dramatically change how you feel. When security cameras first appeared on buses and trains back in the UK I felt like I was being constantly watched, constantly under surveillance and that I was no longer ‘free’ to travel as I pleased. Now however, after one certain train journey in Paris four weeks ago, my whole view on this has changed.

Security cameras are there for a reason, and that reason is to protect us. If this constitutes an invasion of my privacy then that is something that I can live with. I now only wait on platforms under the nose of a security camera and I always travel in populated coaches. Because of this I feel safe travelling, and I am no longer afraid.

In the case of this unfortunate student in the video, if the security cameras were not on board, would any of these youths have been bought to justice? This footage will enable the assailants’ faces to be visually captured rather than recreated through witness statements, and the whole passage of events can be accurately compiled and thanks to the video evidence, can be undisputable.

Security cameras are therefore in my eyes essential and should be accepted as part of daily life rather than rejected. But of course, the footage recorded must be treated with the utmost respect, something that was hardly exhibited by this certain police officer.

Another argument put forward by the public transport authorities for these cameras on their vehicles is that they act as a deterrent for such crimes. However, on this point I’m not so sure. But when (and heaven forbid should it) something like this happens to you, I’d like to think you would take some comfort knowing that there are cameras there to have caught it, and that justice can be done. With no CCTV and no proof that anything happened to me, the police were not interested in my instance.

So what about on the Parisian buses? Well, according to RATP drivers, such attacks are fairly commonplace on the buses that run through the night. One is even quoted in the local paper le Parisien saying: "If you do not have money for a taxi on Saturday night, it's better to stay in the disco and wait for the morning.”

Useful advice - I’ll be sure to remember that.

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs

Posted by Andrew at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Comments

In the same week that marks International Women’s Day, it would be relevant to pay tribute this week to a woman who has certainly proven that she has balls (pun intended). This woman, of course, is US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who this week sought single-handedly to reverse decades of tensions and hostilities between the USA, Iran and Russia and impose the new American administration’s views upon the world.

She was in Brussels this week on what was her first trip to Europe as Secretary of State, and held discussions with both NATO and EU bodies on topics relations with Russia for NATO and climate change for the EU. Two increasingly important topics.

While on Thursday we learnt that NATO will resume high-level contacts with Russia after having frozen contacts over the conflict between Russia and Georgia, the most interesting development in my eyes came on Tuesday when the world learnt of President Obama’s letter to Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

In this letter Mr Obama asked for his counterpart’s support in stopping Iran acquiring long-range missiles. As a trade-off for their support, he is thought to have proposed scrapping the USA’s plan for a missile defence shield to be constructed across Eastern Europe, a plan that quite frankly is one of paranoid-drenched madness.

The US maintains that its planned missile defence system in Europe was conceived to destroy incoming ballistic missiles fired from "rogue states", such as North Korea and Iran, but seen from Russian eyes, this interpretation could also easily be seen to include them, and as a consequence be interpreted as a renewed effort to recreate another east-west division (albeit this time virtual not concrete).

Even its proposed location is significant because those countries were the barrier would be were part of the now defunct Soviet Union, which in the view of the Kremlin still falls within its sphere of interest. The Russian’s therefore were understandably unhappy with the USA’s defence shield plan and the EU was most likely uncomfortably also as this would not only intrude upon its own defence strategies but also give the Russians the impression that it was overtly cooperating against them; an act that could so easily have triggered Cold War II.

But one must still ask whether such a defence shield is really necessary? The Iranian military insists its missiles have a range of only 2,000km (approximately 1,240 miles) which would mean they could potentially hit targets in Greece, Bulgaria or Romania, all of whom are NATO member states. But America, being America, is extremely paranoid and does not believe that. After all, relations between the USA and Iran can hardly be described as warm, friendly and ‘special’ in the same terms as that of the UK.

Just last week I finished watching the BBC2 series ‘Iran and the West’ that I had downloaded, which was an extremely interesting programme outlining this key events in this relationship. From the citizen revolution which disposed of the US-supported Shah in favour of the banished Ayatollah Khomeini, who preached his revolutionary messages from a small safe house on the outskirts of Paris, US-Iran relations have never been great.

In November 1979 the US embassy in Tehran was overpowered by Iranian students who took 63 staff hostage and prompted the US severing all diplomatic ties and imposing strict sanctions upon Iran. Initially the students demanded that the Shah return from the US to Iran to face trial, but later their demands changed to require the USA to promise it never interferes in its affairs in the future. Evidently the superpower did not comply and the subsequent failure of a top-secret military attempt to rescue the hostages did nothing help the USA’s cause nor did the mistakenly shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by a US gunboat in July 1983…

With Hillary’s husband Bill as US president and Muhammad Khatami elected to the position of Iranian President in 1997, there was a brief glimmer of hope as Khatami appealed for a "dialogue with the American people" in American TV interview he requested set up. However, this hope was short-lived, when in a sermon a few weeks later he was sharply critical of the US and its "oppressive policies".

Then, when in January 2002 the-then president George W Bush describes Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address, it became near impossible to see any cooperation and resumption of friendly ties being resumed.

While these are only a small number of incidents (more here*), there is a long-running animosity between the two countries, perhaps as hotly contentious as that between Russia and the USA. So is President Obama’s plan realistic or just extremely optimistic? His campaign may have revolved around the banner of ‘hope’, but I think that this latest step is simply just too hopeful.

Indeed, the arrival of Obama in the White House has exhaled a huge breathe of fresh optimistic air around the world, bought about a renewed sense of global friendships and more importantly brought about a sense of real change. Unsurprisingly, UK Prime Minister was very quick to head to the States and reaffirm the UK’s love and support of America in his speech to Congress. Mr Brown recognises that America is moving forward.

But can the same be said about US-Russia relations? Is there a real possibility now that the Cold War sentiments are really going to evaporate away? Perhaps not entirely. The USA may want a fresh-start but that certainly wasn’t the message that Secretary of State Clinton delivered to Moscow on Saturday (albeit unintentionally).

In case you missed this piece of news, Hillary Clinton gave her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, a mock "reset" button with the complete intention for the gift to symbolise the USA’s hope to mend its frayed ties with Moscow. A good gesture in itself, it didn’t have quite the desired effect as the word written on the button was "peregruzka" meaning "overloaded" or "overcharged", rather than the desired "reset".

Naturally this was a too good an opportunity for the Russian press to miss, and so they poked fun at the Americans, with the one of the daily newspapers Kommersant apparently declared on its front page rather wittily: "Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton push the wrong button."

In true Woman’s Day fashion, Hillary Clinton said in a statement this week that “women's full participation is the key for the international community to combat challenges in the 21st century, since women have a crucial role in tackling major issues such as the global economic crisis, sectarian warfare and terrorism.” She is certainly making her mark and combating the challenges of the 21st century, and her efforts have already bought about changes this week. With talks due with Turkey and China next, you have to wonder what will be next…

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:49 PM | Permalink | Comments

Last Tuesday evening I attended a seminar hosted by Temtsel Hao, a producer from BBC World Service China, on the issue of the press in China and the subsequent reporting of the Olympic Games. The impression that emerged from the seminar was that there ‘undeniably existed’ an overwhelming heavy ‘anti-China bias in the Western media’. This is something that I wholeheartedly disagree with and has been on my mind since then. That is, until now.

I should firstly state that while speaking in a personal capacity, that opinion was not that explicitly expressed by Mr Hao, but was that inferred by his speech which referred heavily to the supposedly anti-China coverage by the ‘West’ surrounding the Free Tibet campaign. In his talk he also showed a video from YouTube that was blatant pro-China propaganda produced by a Chinese local, which he then proceeded to explain why each of the ‘facts’ presented in the video was correct and confirmed this bias.

One of those arguments he expanded on revolved around the coverage, particularly by the BBC, of the protest surrounding the Olympic Torch as its global parade reached the streets of London. Apparently the BBC’s articles, such as this one (click here to read)*, drew more attention to the protests than the symbolic message the torch carrying conveys.

Well Duh! In media terms, the successful completion of a torch parade is not news, unless of course all the previous attempts had been interrupted.

Therefore the protests that occurred inherits a massive news value because this is news. I certainly don’t believe that reporting this was anti-China, or even pro-Tibet for that matter. It is called news reporting, and is an essential part of any news media, especially the free press - something that China currently does not enjoy.

And it is there that I believe the real issue lies. For me, a free press is an essential instrument of democracy, but then again you cannot call China, with its one-party system a functioning democracy. The press in China is far less free than the press in the United States or France or here in the UK, and there are no clear signs that the ruling Communist Party of China led has any intention of changing the rules of the game in the future.

Media outlets, although numerous, are continuously subjected to government censorship and newspapers, magazines and web sites are being shut down on a regular basis because the powers that be don’t like the substance being produced.

In some instances, the very content that was censored was just the simple facts (e.g. the number of people at a protest), but even those facts would create a more transparent political atmosphere and induce government accountability. These two factors, I feel, are all the more critical in a society, such as China’s where governmental authority is monopolised by a single party that continues to play a major role in the economy through its ownership of the banks and controlled of inward investment policy that has seen its massive rise on the global scene.

Such transparent and investigative reporting, whether you like it or not in the English press, has made the English government far more accountable to its citizens and gone a long way to ensuring that massive scandals and corruption (something that is rife in China) is exposed and actively discouraged.

As for the issue of the anti-China bias, I will admit that I believe such a bias exists, but it is not as strong as those who attended the seminar believed. My personal opinion is that China has brought it on itself – if it had nothing to hide then why does it exercise censorship so often and rigorously?

It may claim that reporting restrictions in the run-up and during the Olympic Games 2008 in Beijing will be unrestricted, but why then was the Panorama journalist John Sweeney assigned a government supervisor who ensured he only reported on things ‘permitted’ by the government? (Episode details here)*

It has been true, however, that some allowances are beginning to be made. For example, back in July the Chinese authorities removed the public-access restriction allowing locals to browse the BBC’s China pages (story here)* and the Party has gone further to suggest that its ruled may be permanently relaxed after the Games to allow foreign correspondents to travel around China without first getting permission from the authorities - as they had to do previously, and being able to interview people without prior consent.

But significantly, the regulations do not apply to Chinese journalists, who will continue to face a high degree of control and censorship by the Chinese government.

With that in mind it might be many more years before the Chinese Press can enjoy the same freedoms as their English counterparts can over here on a daily basis. Until China loosens the straight-jacket on the reporting of its national media, its government cannot be held accountable, and whose to say that public discontent will not rise to a level witnessed in the horrifying events of Tiananmen Square in 1989?

After all, next year will be its 20th anniversary, and the eyes of the world’s press will no doubt assign that some attention…

UPDATE: 25/11/08 18.42

Funnily enough, the Chinese have today reacted negatively to the release of the highly-anticipated new album from Guns N' Roses, labelling it as 'venemous'.

Released around the world yesterday, it is the band’s first studio album since their last 15-years ago in 1993, is called Chinese Democracy (surely a contradiction in terms). As reported on the BBC news website, an article in the Global Times that was published by the Chinese ruling communist party, says the album "turns its spear point on China".

Inevitably it has been on the receiving end of the censorship treatment. Already, the official website for the album has been blocked, the title track of the album refers to the banned Falun Gong spiritual group. Although I’m personally not a fan of the band and so have not listened to the album, lead singer Axl Rose apparently during the title track sings: "If your great wall rocks, blame yourself”, and if that wasn’t enough, the artwork for the album includes the oil painting Red Star by Beijing artist Shi Lifeng - the one which depicts the Chinese people as powerless.

With China's reluctancy to allow anything that undermines the regime and their perception of such an anti-China sentiment from America and the West, I wonder if the Chinese authorities will ever allow this American band to play a live show there in the future? I believe not...

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Comments

So it is done. Barack Obama is to be the next occupant of the Oval Office. He may not officially start work there until late January but I’m sure he will have plenty of things in his in-tray to address before then and we’re all eagerly anticipating the announcements of who will consist his cabinet.

Yet while we wait for those, we have seen national political leader after leader throw (or at least attempt to) themselves into the arena as ‘New Obamas’ to capitalise on his popularity in what I am calling the ‘Obama Effect’.

But it’s not just political leaders, the rest of the world is embracing him and calling him their own, even the computer gaming world, who have started to release Obama-related games.

One such game, entitled Super Obama World (modelled on the best-selling Nintendo's Super Mario World franchise) has Obama running round a virtual world collecting flags and dodging lipstick-wearing pit bulls, lobbyists and… Sarah Palin. Click here to have a play yourself*

So this is it, today is the day that America votes for its 44th President.

To think that the campaigns for Obama and McCain began almost two years ago is amazing yet this evening will feel just as long for the two candidates I’m sure.

I am already anxious and nervous as to how the evening will unfold. I cast my mind back to the last American general election four years ago, when confident of a Democrat win (in the form of John Kerry), George Bush won a second term in the White House and surprised me and many others. I am now really hoping the same will not happen again.

But looking at the opinion polls throughout the election, why should it? Obama has consistently been ahead in the polls and McCain has suffered massively in terms of public opinion with his handling of the economic crisis and, of course, Sarah Palin.

The bottom line is that if all those who pledged to vote Obama, vote Obama, he will be the next President of the United States of America. In some parts of the country, voters were being drawn to the polling stations with sausage rolls and hot drinks, so long as they all turned up and voted Democrat...

I've also been careful not to mention the Democrat buzzword, because I'll be honest (and I'm sure you'll feel the same) I'm a little tired of hearing it. But nonetheless, Barack Obama is the favourite to win and hopefully that will not change.

For me, the night is young...

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments

We all went to Montreux yesterday and made use of the marvellous Swiss train network, CFF, which got me thinking about the state of our own rail system and that it needs to be nationalised once more.

It is well known that here in Switzerland all the trains run like clockwork, arriving and departing exactly on the times stated on the timetables – we’ve noticed that many a time, even with the Bex-Villars mountain train. It is even the same in France with their TGV network. The long distance trains are powered entirely by electricity and as a result are not only really quiet and the ride is smooth, the journey is environmentally friendly. The fares are also very respectable and what I believe is more important is that they are constant – there is a set fare for travel between places and no discount is offered for advanced or online ticket purchases.

The disadvantage, however, of the Swiss system is that services are not as frequent as they are in the UK. A busy station, such as Geneva’s Cointrin will see far fewer trains passing through its platforms than any of the London mainline stations. The CrossCountry train route from Penzance to Glasgow, formerly operated by Virgin Trains, was the route that I often took as I travelled between my home station at Exeter and university in Sheffield. There are two services per hour on that route, which in Switzerland would instead be just one service each hour.

What this inevitably means of course is that there is less traffic on the rails which allows any delays (heaven forbid) can be rectified between stations with a little extra speed. English train services cannot afford this luxury as because there are rival train services competing for consumers, they fill the rail timetables with as many services as they can, which then causes many huge logistical nightmares in terms of signalling and the inevitable knock-on delay that would be transferred upon future services.

Although I do not have the figures, I imagine that the number of passengers using the long distance services in both countries is similar despite the extra train services operating in the UK. I believe this because the long-haul Swiss trains typically carry upwards of 12-15 carriages that are longer than the ones in use in the UK and can hold more passengers. Instead of the typical five carriages on the aforementioned CrossCountry service – ten carriages per hour – the Swiss Geneva to Bern service would boast 15.

Of course, this immediately raises the issue of station size as extra carriages on each train would require longer platforms. From personal experience I believe that such trains could be accommodated at Sheffield, all of the London mainline stations, Bristol Temple Meads, Birmingham New Street, Reading, possibly Manchester Piccadilly and even Exeter St Davids. For other mainline stations perhaps money to expand the platforms would be required, but I would view this as an investment as it would ease the pressure on timetables and reduce the chance of a knock-on delay by removing more services from the rails.

I could not possibly justify this overall argument without tackling the issue of rail fares because this is one of the reasons why people perhaps don’t use the rail service. The fact is that there are too many different options for tickets in the UK. This has arisen from the various companies operating the many routes and trying to undercut their opposition. Recently the Government has announced its plans to have just three types of ticket with the emphasis on those buying in advance as they receive a better price than those who turn up at the station and travel on the day.

Buying in advance via the web has been a tactic I have used to my advantage many a time and have as a result benefited from travelling in First Class rather than Standard Class as the ticket was cheaper. I remember on one of my journeys north on the CrossCountry I caught a glance of my neighbour in First Class’ ticket and saw that I had paid a full £200 less and I was travelling a longer distance.

The most sensible move in my eyes would be to nationalise the fare structure and set a particular rate for travel within the UK. Perhaps this could be organised in zones like those operated by the London Underground or calculated from working out the time taken for that journey using the fastest possible route and the customer paying a set rate per ten minutes.

Unfortunately I cannot foresee the railways becoming re-nationalised as the Government earns a very handsome amount from selling the rights to operating the routes to particular franchises. And while the train services would become less frequent, they would become more reliable, more accessible for a greater number of people, and the fare system would not penalise passengers for not buying their tickets three months in advance.

Who knows, this might even get people out of their cars and onto the rails…

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 9:02 PM | Permalink | Comments

He decided to pull out and despite it representing a massive defeat for democracy I think it was the right decision.

Throughout the whole election campaign, it was obvious that something was going to give. On Sunday afternoon Tsvangirai called a press conference and announced that his party was pulling out of the presidential run-off scheduled for this coming Friday.

Tsvangirai said that he was pulling out of the presidential run-off because there was no point running when elections would not be free and fair and “the outcome is determined by... Mugabe himself".

As you would expect, the ruling Zanu-PF party replied to the news said that Tsvangirai had taken the decision so to avoid “humiliation” in the poll. However, the results of the March election would suggest otherwise. The election officials had announced that Tsvangirai won with 47.9% of the vote, beating Robert Mugabe's ruling Zanu-PF party, but because neither side won 50% of the vote, neither could declare themselves as the victor.

The MDC claimed those results were rigged by Mugabe’s supporters to prevent them from winning, an allegation that they deny. The campaigning then turned sour with the instances of violence reported back to us in Europe by the media.

The initial campaigning back in March, was by comparison, relatively peaceful with the MDC free to campaign around the country and Tsvangirai gained about 120,000 more votes than Mr Mugabe, according to official results.

Since then, the MDC says a campaign of violence has been unleashed against its supporters to try to overturn that deficit in the second round. Zanu-PF denies this, blaming the violence on the MDC in turn.

So back to the dilemma that faced Mr Tsvangirai. How could you possibly consider winning an election that you cannot campaign because you’re either being arrested, your rallies are being banned or become overwhelmed by violence, the lives of 80 plus of your supporters have been lost, a further 200,000 displaced and the national media – under complete control of Mugabe – feeding propaganda to the masses (if they’re alive)?

The conclusion is that it is hard to contemplate fighting on. Obviously it was not a decision to be taken lightly, but I believe that it was the right one on reflection. Speaking at his press conference, Mr Tsvangirai said: “We in the MDC cannot ask them to cast their vote on 27 June, when that vote could cost them their lives. We have resolved that we will no longer participate in this violent, illegitimate sham of an election process. We will not play the game of Mugabe.”

He then called on the United Nations, African Union and the southern African grouping SADC to intervene to prevent a “genocide” in Zimbabwe. But what can actually be done? How can we remove Robert Mugabe who shockingly said himself last week that: “Only God who appointed me will remove me – not the MDC, not the British”?

Mr Tsvangirai will now hope that by withdrawing the international community, in particular Zimbabwe's neighbours, will increase pressure on Mr Mugabe to step down, or at least form a government of national unity.

Neighbouring South Africa and China are the countries with the most influence, by helping to keep Zimbabwe's moribund economy afloat, so should naturally try to add their weight to the global pressure. South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki has appeared to try to mediate the political crisis but has so far refused to criticise Mr Mugabe in public – a move that should definitely be his first step.

The next step would be to resolve Zimbabwe's economy which is in a monumental crisis. Official figures for February 2008 show that the countries’ annual inflation rate is at 100,580% a rise from 7,600% in July 2007.

To put this into perspective: in 1980, one US dollar bought 80 Zimbabwean cents and in March this year, that one dollar was worth around 50 million Zimbabwean dollars. What this means is that one loaf of bread costs the average citizen 7 million dollars. As a result this has led to famine and even to food shortages because businesses say they cannot afford to sell goods for less than the cost of making them.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the badly-needed support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been suspended because the government has fallen behind with its loan repayments…

Zimbabwe is currently in a crisis – in the full sense of the word. How it can be solved remains a mystery to many, but one of the absolute essential steps that need to be taken to begin this recovery is to remove Mugabe from any position of power.

The withdrawal of the MDC opposition in the elections was a good move to bring the situation into the global spotlight, but Mugabe will no doubt soon declare victory and continue his 28-year-term in office and continue with his regime of ‘state-sponsored terror’.


This buzzword in America raises the option of international troops entering Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe from power like it did with Saddam Hussein. But whatever the international community decide to do, they need to act soon. Whatever the course of action chosen, its 12 million population will suffer losses, but these losses would be worth it in the long-run.

No-one should risk death for wanting change.

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Comments

Image credit: Peter Brookes, from the Times dated 13/06/08

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments

I find it really bizarre and somewhat frustrating that the only thing that came out of last weeks' PM's questions in the press was the fact that the Conservative leader David Camerons' parting had moved to the centre from its usual left-hand side spot (see below).


I remember back in March, possibly last year in fact, when his parting moved from the centre to the left, and the Daily Mail sketchwriter Quentin Letts cleverly said that it symbolised the direction in which Mr Cameron was taking his party. (full story here)

Today however, Cameron credited his 'bad hair day' to having worn a cycle helmet on his journey into Parliament that morning (full story here)

Speaking to GMTV, Cameron said: "All that happened is I got on my bicycle, put on a cycle helmet for once, because I'm always being told to... and something went a bit wrong."

"It's amazing how much can be written" about "these things". Yes, yes it is.

It seems that having good hair and a consistantly smart appearance means more and more in today's world of personality politics, I guess this means I should start taking better care of my hair! Ironically, I did actually get it cut today... something to do.

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Comments

The announcement this morning of the death of Chantal Sébire, the 52-year old French schoolteacher with an incurable facial tumour and whose euthanasia plea was refused by a French court last week, will no doubt reignite the debate into whether euthanasia should be allowed.

Mme Sébire (left), a mother of three who lived near the northern town of Dijon, had suffered from an extremely rare form of cancer in the nasal cavity known as an esthesioneuroblastoma. So rare in fact that apparently only 200 cases of the disease have been recorded worldwide in the past two decades.

She said the tumour left her blind, disfigured and suffering intense pain and appeared on French TV last month to gain the right to die. She even described how children ran away from her in the street.

She took her fight to a French court where the magistrate admitted that although the her situation "merits compassion" her request "can only be rejected under French law."

Now the legal aspect is a little more complicated. In France, legislation was adopted in 2005 that allowed families to request that life-support equipment for terminally ill patients be switched off. The bill allows doctors to stop giving medical assistance when it "has no effect other than maintaining life artificially". However, this law does not allow a doctor to take action to end a patient's life.

Of course, you also have the moral issue to contend with. In the case of Mme Sebire, her life was seriously affected and she was suffering from a terminal bout of cancer so was perhaps within her moral right to request an early death. But with the legislation and the Hippocratic oath sworn by doctors, euthanasia will probably always be denied by the state.

That is why people such as Noel Martin (left) are contacting associations that will aid people to end their lives early. Noel Martin, who is the subject of my latest translation for cafebabel (click here), became a paraplegic after his car was attacked by a band of neo-Nazis in a small town just south of Berlin in 1996.

The British citizen of Jamaican origin made headline news in Germany last year and is still fighting to be able to decide the date of his death. He had originally announced on German TV that he had chosen the date of 23 June 2007, the day of his 48th birthday, to end his life. However, two months before that date he postponed his trip to Switzerland indefinitely; he still needed time to organise his affairs and leave his legacy on his foundation and educational projects.

In 2000, he lost his wife to cancer, and says that he doesn't feel like a normal person, so does he have a valid case for euthanasia? Personnally, I believe that in such cases, the patients should be free to make that choice, after all "normal" people can make the choice of committing suicide. Everyone is entitled to a decent quality of life, and as Mme Sebire said on French TV: "One would not allow an animal to go through what I have endured".

Whatever the circumstances surrounding Mme Sébire's death, the euthanasia debate is now very much alive and in public discussion. So what do you think?

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments

I think I was as shocked as everyone else in France today to hear that President Sarkozy has officially married ex-model Carla Bruni. Sarkozy only divorced his former wife Cecilia in October 2007, and now suddenly he's fallen in love and three months later he's married again. Pardon me for being a traditionalist but surely that is too quick!

It is believed that Sarkozy first met Ms Bruni at a dinner party in Paris soon after his divorce but by mid-December the French media was abuzz with rumours that they might be about to tie the knot. The couple were followed to Egypt, and then to Jordan, where they did not seem to want to hide from the rumours and as a result have probably become the hottest topic in recent times when it comes to French politics.

Many commentators have noted that the pair's rapid courtship has coincided with a downturn in Mr Sarkozy's popularity ratings with many accusing the President of putting his private life on public display. This could not have been more evident when he called a grand mass press conference in the l'Elysée Palace and spoke about his relationship with Ms Bruni - a first in French history (Read more here).

Charles Bremner's blog for the Times has been pretty much entirely dedicated to the coverage of the Sarkozy - Bruni love story since it emerged, as have many of the mainstream French newspapers. But what I wonder is this: is it all simply one big publicity stunt?

It is conceivable that it was blown up onto such a scale to divert attention away from the memoires that Sarkozy's ex-wife Cecilia was due to publish following the couple's divorce. After all, Sarkozy had gone to the courts to prevent its publication, but failed, and the book became an overnight best-seller.

Alternatively, Sarkozy may have used this fast-developing relationship to smother the reaction to the many controversial changes that he has made since assuming the presidency. Apparently Sarkozy is said to be unconvinced that his "bling bling" personal life has contributed to his fall in popularity, and attributes the slide to a feeling of disappointment with the countries' economy and his failure to perform miracles. (Although in my eyes he did perform a miracle when he implemented the nationwide smoking ban! Read more here)

Or maybe I am too sceptical, maybe it really is love. Maybe he was so madly in love with a girl that 'swept him off his feet' and he wanted to shout it aloud to the world, court press coverage and use it as an excuse to make a name for himself in the history books.

So is it a publicity stunt, a man desperate not to be single, or love? I guess only time will tell...

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 8:12 PM | Permalink | Comments

Poor old Newcastle, they've sacked their eighth manager in so many years and this afternoon they got battered 6-0 by an inspirational second-half display from Manchester United.

Newcastle United want to be the best but they're not in the same league as they big four. They have always been, and will be for a very long time, a mid-table team. One of the many reasons for this is that the fans never give the manager a chance to construct a team - just take Fergie at Manchester United as an example of how you should give a manager time!

Obviously it doesn't help if your team cannot defend, but I have so much sympathy for one Newcastle player, their goalkeeper Shay Given. For me he has been without a shadow of a doubt the best player to pull on a Newcastle shirt in the last decade. He is a consistently reliable performer and some of the saves he pulled off today at Old Trafford were simply incredible. Simply put, if it wasn't for him, Manchester United would have been in double-figures. Easily.

Given is a really quality goalkeeper, I've maintained this opinion for years and I just feel really sorry that he's at Newcastle and not elsewhere having the trophy-filled career he should be enjoying. I'd love to see him as the Man. United number 1 but I think that is probably very unlikely, and I doubt that any manager mad enough to take the vacant Newcastle job (let's be honest) would get rid of him.

Oh and on the subject of the next manager, I'm placing my money on Steve McClaren. You heard it here first!

Labels: Comment, Sport

Posted by Andrew at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Comments

If you haven't seen this, then have a look now. It seems to have vanished off the TV in its beautiful full version so here is a clip, but it simply is the best advert ever created. If only I could recreate that effect for the Shefbase...

Labels: Comment

Posted by Andrew at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments

I have just spent the last hour or so on the BBC news website and numerous other news sites reading and watching reports on the latest campus shooting in the States. This time it was at Virginia Tech University in Virginia, and at the time of publishing this post, 31 people have been confirmed dead and a further 10 injured. Frankly, this is a disgrace. When will America learn?

NOTHING, and I shall repeat for emphasis, NOTHING, good comes about from guns. Guns incite war and conflict, guns inflict totally unnecessary harm on people, and on animals, and quite how people can enjoy causing this amount of pain is quite beyond me.

Guns should be illegal. We have no good reason to have them and no need for them, and I am just wondering quite how many American students (or people across the world for that matter) will have to suffer because of them before something is actually done.

This is what President George Bush said after hearing the news of the latest shooting: "schools should be places of safety and sanctuary and learning. When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community," OK so do something about it then…

American campuses need metal detectors, why these were not installed following Columbine eight years ago is again beyond me. Is it because these machines would "invade" and "interfere" with people's privacy? I would rather have to walk through a metal detector every single day than lose a friend, family member, or even my own life to a firearm.

Guns are nothing but creators of destruction and unnecessary violence. There are presidential elections due in the United States in the near future, I just hope and pray that this issue is 'the' big issue and that something can finally be done to put an end to all this madness; Hopefully before another 30 students lose their lives.

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments

Here's my latest published translation for your enjoyment:

Published on cafébabel: 20/03/07 http://www.cafebabel.com/en/article.asp?T=T&Id=10411

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments

Times are changing, and rebranding is becoming more an issue of when rather than why. The Guardian has seen success with its new style and a new image is sometimes a good tactic to employ. This week I've already seen two new corporate images emerge, that of Bordeaux 7 - the daily free paper that is a reduced version of the Sud Ouest (Bordeaux's main paper), and that of Ténéo.

I walk past their large sign every single day which advertises their apartments (the one's I'm living in) as "ideal for students", yet I was under the impression I was one of a few students actually here. However, returning home the other day I noticed there was a new plaque on the wall, which read "Ténéo Student - Médoquine". Quite why it's "student" and not the French "étudiant" I'm not sure - either English is now a cool language out here, or that they're looking to work on the market of students like myself on ERASMUS exchanges from England... I have to admit the new image looks good. It certainly makes the place look more impressive, but whether or not it'll affect how this place is run is yet to be seen. Although saying that I received a note the other day asking me politely to pay them rent for January and February - which I knowingly did in advance in December...

But I mention the whole corporate identity issue because next week, Wednesday 14th February to be precise, is the day when the new look Sheffieldbase is revealed to the public. It may also be Valentines Day, but you know. The new design looks good, and it's really brought the site up-to-date and shall make navigating the vast array of articles much simpler. As a result, additional sections of the site have been created including sections on Gigs, Clubbing, Eating, Drinking, Shopping, Finance, Arts and many more.

But what most excites me most is a new feature which will see the launching of podcasts and video clips (featuring interviewees and our editorial team) that will make the Sheffieldbase truly interactive and incorporating of all the latest technologies.

"The new website will give you the most important stories not just from university, but also from Sheffield and the surrounding areas as well."

Log on and see the new design for yourself from Wednesday 14th February. It can be accessed as usual via www.sheffieldbase.com or via its new domain www.shefbase.com.

Labels: Comment

Posted by Andrew at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments

Well I’m now back in Bordeaux after a lovely English Christmas, it’s now 2007, a new year, and for many a that signals a time for change and resolutions which, lets be honest don’t ever last long. Evidently France is still oblivious to this concept.

The first sign I saw of this was news that in the city of Nantes, hundreds of people, playing on the perception of the French readiness to say “non”, had light-heartedly taken to the streets in the second annual run of their protest of the coming of the New Year.

Armed with banners reading: “No to 2007, sign the petition” and ” No to 2007, Now is better!” the demonstrators in the western city of Nantes even took to the streets in the rain to fight their cause, even claiming that the weather was even against the New Year.

« The Front d'Opposition à la Nouvelle Année » (F.O.N.A.), a new political group that intends to fight the coming of a new year called on the governments and the UN to stop time's "mad race" and declare a moratorium on the future. They even vowed to stage a similar protest on 31 December 2007 on the Champs-Elysees Avenue in Paris to protest against the coming of 2008, complete with a sacrificial burning of all things related to the New Year. Honestly, I kid you not.

Obviously, the protesters did not achieve their aims and once midnight had come and gone, even in the face of their spirited resistance, they rallied and began to chant "2008 ne passera pas!" (“2008 will not come!”). So if you believe in their cause, you can sign up on their website (www.fonacon.net) and join the march next December if you really want to…

Elsewhere in the political world, following the withdrawal of Nicolas Sarkozys’ main party rival Michele Alliot-Marie (aka MAM), Sarkozy was officially named as his party’s representative in the upcoming Presidential elections. Now with Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal confirmed as candidates, the likelihood of those two competing in the “Second Tour” is looking every more likely.

Despite the increasing popularity of Mme Royal, if the two contested the “Second Tour” in May then according to a poll published in Le Figaro on Monday (22nd) Sarkozy is currently in line to defeat his opponent in the vote, with apparently the support of 52% of the population behind him compared to 48% for Royal. However, when we consider the figures from the same poll for the “Premier Tour” (the two candidates with the most votes here contest the “Second Tour”), the third placed candidate is the extreme-right “Front National” leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, who famously made it through to the “Second Tour” in 2002’s Presidential elections.

A bit closer to home, well my home this year anyway, there is a commotion brewing between locals and the council. Near to where I live is a disused, abandoned, derelict wreck which once used to be a railway shed. The local council has given a construction company permission to demolish the premises and build in its place a new state-of-the-art apartment block. However, since the building fell into its current state of disuse, it has become a new canvas for the local “tagueurs” - graffiti artists to you and me.

Evidently their space for artistic expression will be lost once demolition starts and so they are demanding that the council provides them with some other space to graffiti! Speaking to a member of the local press, one of the “tagueurs” explains that he believes that it is his “right” to have a space for his art. He argues that the council cannot destroy their workspace, but if they have to they have to provide them with somewhere else! It’s clear too that they’re not the only ones to feel this way as many local residents have visited the site especially to encourage the artists on…

Unfortunately it’s turning into a similar farce in the sporting world with the declaration last week that French teams would not be competing in the European (Heineken) Cup. The withdrawal comes as the result of a conflict involving England's Rugby Football Union (RFU) and the Rugby Premiership sides, the National League (LNR) announced last week.

The LNR said in a statement that an internal dispute between the game's governing body in England, the RFU, and the Premiership had led to uncertainty over the future of the competitions and therefore it had decided to pull out the French clubs. There have been doubts over the competition's future for months because of threats of a French boycott while back over the channel in England, the Premiership clubs were demanding that they have a greater say in how the event is run.

Obviously this isn’t a good thing for France, especially with the country hosting the Rugby World Cup on its soil this coming September. But even that is threatening to be marred at the moment. In a real French way, pubs and bars across France have decided to boycott Guinness, who sponsors the World Cup, in their establishments during the month of January.

French publicans are protesting that the price is far too high to maintain proper margins and at the same time propose a convenient price to the customers. They say that due to the price imposed by distributors, they are now obliged to sell a pint of Guinness at €6 (£4.20) a pint, sometimes even as much as €9 (£6.30) in Paris, compared to €4.20 (£3) a pint in Ireland.

“Nothing quite replaces a Guinness” are the words of one consumer to a journalist in one of Bordeaux Irish pubs, but once Guinness returns to the pumps in February (if it does) will its popularity have suffered dramatically as a result of this protest? And what will this do to the company’s popularity in the long-run?

Honestly, it’s a totally different world out here. But then again, isn’t that why we love the French??

Published on the sheffieldbase: (http://www.sheffieldbase.com/story.php?s=1453)

Labels: Comment

Posted by Andrew at 9:10 AM | Permalink | Comments

Those who know me well will know that I am proud to be English but tonight I have to admit I was absolutely stunned and horrified at the actions of some people that are unfortunately also known as English citizens. Tonight, Bordeaux hosted Liverpool in the Champions League and despite what follows, I have to start by firstly saying that my opinion would've been the same even if Bordeaux had won or even drawn. As it is they lost - goodness knows how - (1-0) and Liverpool will no doubt have been toasting their undeserved victory in the changing room over a bottle of Bordeaux wine with the referee and his two assistants.

You would have thought that following the incredible events of last weekend when Chelsea lost both of their goalkeepers to injuries (including Petr Cech who thankfully is on the long road to recovery from the surgery on his skull) that the emphasis would be on the immediate treatment of head injuries... But when Liverpool striker Bellamy blatantly threw his elbow into the face of one of the Bordeaux defenders, instead of stopping play the referee played on until the ball was kicked out of play. Then to make things even more unbelievable, he then booked the Bordeaux goalkeeper, Ramé, who had ran (and quite rightly so in my opinion) half the pitch to point out to the referee that it was a head injury and that the game should've been stopped immediately.

Needless to say this set the tone for the evening and quite how Liverpool didn't have a player sent off before halftime only the referee will know. Literally minutes after booking Bobo Zenden for use of the elbow, he took a swing and connected with the back of Bordeaux midfielder Mavuba's legs as he rang away with the ball. No free kick, the referee said, play on! Idiot.

But the real reason for this blog post / rant is to express my utter disbelief at large number of Liverpool fans. Obviously having drunk more cans of beer than the combined number of brain cells between the who travelling support, one group of them decided it would be funny for one of them to urinate over the leg of a French police officer. Needless to say he was arrested and quite rightly so.

But that was only the start! Once I was in the queue to enter the stadium, I was surrounded by a bunch of Liverpool fans, who even though were trying to get in the wrong gate and had deafened me with quite possibly the most drunken rendition of "When the Reds go marching in" I've ever heard, decided they would check my pockets for some valuables to have. After I stamped on their feet (after pretending to stumble) they decided to have a moan at the wait because of the normal security searches, before then having a go at the poor French ticket man on the gates for having to (and I quote) "fooking wait so fooking long to get in da fooking place".

Once I finally sat down, another set of Liverpool fans decided that they'd climb up into the upper tier after diverting the security guards and occupy the first row of the stand - and worst of all STAND UP throughout the whole match. I was on the second row and I could barely see a thing. Of course because none of them could muster up a single French word even if it stared them in the face, they didn't understand any of the thousands of cries for them to sit and I ended up having to ask them to - to which the response was (and I quote again) "I'll fooking stand if I wanna fooking stand so sit fooking down and fooking shut it". I then spent the next few minutes explaining in French to those sat around me that not all English people are like this and I honestly felt ashamed that to them I was one of them - English.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the majority of the Liverpool fans will now be in Bordeaux centre drinking their combined weight in beer, but although this’ll be good for the local economy I honestly hope they won't leave their mark on this lovely place. OK rant over now.

Labels: Comment

Posted by Andrew at 10:27 PM | Permalink | Comments

Went to watch "World Trade Centre" tonight at the UGC cinema in Bordeaux centre and it was quite possibly the strangest cinematic experience I've ever had. I say this because in terms of entertainment value, there's not much to this film, but then again I don't think this film shouldn't be seen as that. Ok, so it stars Nicolas Cage, but it markets itself as "a true story of courage and survival" and is based on the accounts of survivors of the tragic 9/11 events.

We knew what was going to happen to the main characters because they are obvious rescued from the rubble else it couldn't have been their story, but what stood out for me is that these were the people who risked their lives and rushed into the towers unaware of what was to happen to save others. The forgotten ones at the time of the crisis.

But this film is meant as their story, but at the same time I don't view it as a film because it isn't fictional, so it was a bizarre feeling sat there because despite seeing all the devastation I'd normally expect from a big-budget film, I kept having to remind myself that this really did happen.

5 years on and to be honest I'm still not sure if it's sunken in.

Labels: Comment

Posted by Andrew at 10:43 PM | Permalink | Comments