Sunday, February 24, 2008

Loans

Premiership bandits.


No, this is nothing to do with the sub-prime mortgage crisis.


This is about the ridiculous loan arrangements in the football league.


By the football league, I mean to include the Premier League – which is essentially a bandit organisation which has (somehow) managed to remain a part of the FA.


How does the loan system work?


“Premier League clubs have almost complete freedom to sign whatever number and category of players they wish. There is no team or individual salary cap, no squad size limit, no age restrictions other than those applied by general employment law, no restrictions on the overall number of foreign players, and few restrictions on individual foreign players — all players with EU nationality, including those able to claim an EU passport through a parent or grandparent, are eligible to play, and top players from outside the EU are able to obtain UK work permits.”


This is the policy of the madhouse!


Try applying this to the rest of society. Imagine that (say) airline pilots had the same working arrangements. So, Virgin Atlantic – awash with Branson's extra billions – decides to sign all the airline pilots to long-term contacts. This, by the way, would cost less than signing Premiership footballers!


Then, in a gesture of extreme hubris, Branson decides to loan some of the pilots (he chooses which ones!) to British Airways – but only on the strict condition that they don't fly any aircraft to cities served by Virgin and that BA pay all of the pilots inflated salaries and provide medical cover, training, etc. Also, as a prerequisite for receiving “loan pilots” BA must agree to give them priority in the flying roster to ensure that their skills are developed – to the extreme benefit of Virgin.


Sound good? Like to be a passenger on one of Branson's planes – piloted by a “loan-star”? I didn't think so.


The football loan system is a sham which works only to advantage the already super-advantaged Premiership. They have all the players and use the rest of the league to hone their skills. They refuse to part with the “fringe” players, not because they want them, but because they don't want any of their rivals to get them. They only loan them to Championship teams in order to reap any benefits without having to take any of the risks.


If the loan player “flops” at the Championship club – so what? Now they know he's not good enough for the Premiership. What have they lost? Nothing.


What's the solution?


Twofold. First, limit on size of all football squads. Premiership teams should only be allowed to have, say 27 professionals on their books. That's two teams and a bit to allow for reserve team games and injuries. The transfer window should be abolished. Let the Premiership teams wheel and deal to maintain squads if and when they want.


Second, limit the number of loan players a club may field to one. Footballers should want to play football. If they want to play, let them play for the team which owns their registration.


The loan system is yet another shameless scam which distorts the already shameless game of football and should be stopped or severely restricted.



Blogged with Flock

Friday, February 22, 2008

Ipswich Murders - A Conclusion?

Inevitability


Because the Suffolk murders stopped when Steve Wright was arrested and charged with the murder of five prostitutes in Ipswich in December 2006, it was always going to be difficult for his defence team to “prove” that he was not guilty.


In the juries mind the lack of any further murders after his arrest was always going to be crucial.


His defence? I was with all the girls – as a paying customer – but didn't harm them in any way.


Is it possible? Yes.


Is it plausible? Less than yes.


Is it likely? Not really and that is why he is facing the rest of his life in prison.


A better question might be – is it possible that someone else killed the girls?


Yes, it is.


At the heart of the case is the forensic evidence. This is not surprising as murders are rarely committed in the daylight of publicity. By its very nature, murder is a private crime and eye witnesses are seldom available.


So, Wright's assertion that he picked up the girls for sex is plausible.


How do the authorities prove he killed them?


Truth is they can't – except by the process of logical deduction.


You might think that the police have him on CCTV dumping the bodies. No. You might think he was seen by someone who can testify it was he who dumped a body? No. You might think he told someone about the murders? No You might think his family and/or partner had serious concerns about his guilt and turned him in? No.


All the police had was Wright's DNA proving he had been with the girls – a fact he never disputed – and some fibres that belonged to the girls clothes, hair, etc., found in his home and car.


The Crown simply asks the jury to consider if it is more likely that someone else killed the girls. They obviously didn't and voted to convict him. I'm only surprised it took eight hours to reach a verdict? Was someone unconvinced?


The odds are that a very sick and very dangerous man has been removed from the body politic for a very long time. The contention that he will never be released is just pandering to the public's need for revenge. It may or may not happen.


More worrying still is the possibility that Wright is innocent. The real killer may be still out there. It's possible.


The mos useful function of a case of this type is its ability to refute the crazy calls for the reintroduction of the death penalty. Steve Wright's punishment, if he is indeed guilty, is worse than death. he may spend 40 or 50 years locked away.


If this is a miscarriage of justice, his death would only reinforce Parliament's reluctance to condone state sponsored murder.

Blogged with Flock

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Archbishops

Scimitared


Rowan Williams seems a nice guy. He is, by all accounts, very clever and very godly. These are qualities that make him eminently qualified to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.


They are not qualities needed to be a wise political operator.


His attempt to open a debate about how the Muslim Sharia law might be accommodated into the UK system of jurisprudence has resulted in damage to both the CofE and the Muslim community in the UK. That much is certain.


I watched the Bishop of Hume on BBC Questiontime last night manfully trying to explain and justify the Archbishop's remarks on Sharia. He was struggling!! Struggling big time!!


This is not altogether surprising as most of the general public associate Muslims with terrorists and Sharia law with cutting people's hands off and beheading criminals. This is clearly a distortion. Where do these ideas come from?


I know one place.


Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves. Remember it? What an exciting adventure, romance tale – starring Kevin Costner (when he was still on top of the acting tree), Morgan Freeman (before he became the mega-star he is today) and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio – when she was an up-and-coming actress.


Ok, got it?


Now, remember the contrived way Morgan Freeman was brought into the Robin Hood legend? After all, there were many black people in Sherwood Forest, surely?


Robin and his mate (Marion's brother) are stuck in a Muslim prison. Robin volunteers to have his hand cut off (for stealing – notice the nice Sharia hysteria side-plot) ) instead of the hand of his boyhood friend and fellow Crusader. Robin cleverly escapes – helped by his new-found Muslim friend, Azeem, played by Freeman. How else would you get a black man into medieval England? Even then he's described as a Moor. So was Othello – and Othello was surely black.


The point?


I contend that most of what the general population ( general here, sadly, includes most of the readers for the Daily Mail – or the Daily Fascist to give it its proper name ) know about Sharia law and indeed Muslims in general is brought to them by the popular press and the entertainment media.


When the Archbishop tries to open a debate about the relationship between various ethnic, religious and social groups in Britain, he's on a hiding to nothing.


No matter how scholarly the approach – he's going to be scimitared in the popular press.


Why? Because only the enlightened few will remember that at the time of the Crusades the Muslim World almost single-handedly kept the light of learning alive in the Western Hemisphere. When London was a hovel, Damascus was a metropolitan paradise.


Unfortunately, when the twin towers collapsed so did any chance of avoiding the rampant Islama-phobia we see today. A brave attempt by the Archbishop to engineer an enlightened debate was always destined to fail.


Might as well try to reintroduce stoning for prostitutes – and I think you'll find that in the Bible – not the Koran.

Blogged with Flock

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Super Bowl - It's a wrap!!

Fans are the winners!


Fans of my blog will already know that I predicted the Giants to win Super Bowl XLII.


After coming down from the clouds with my reputation restored and a big fat wallet courtesy of the bookies, I've spent the intervening week analysing just why the Patriots flopped and the Giants prospered.


The most cogent explanation I found was on the Chiefs website and I'm happy to acknowledge that this is a quotation and not my own work:


“The Giants are champions because they played Stone Age football, and their furious pass rush took away Tom Brady’s greatest weapon – time to throw. Suddenly, one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history had to rush his throws or eat the ball while averaging a measly 5.5 yards per attempt. His running game averaged 2.8 yards per rush. No wonder the highest-scoring offence in league history was outscored 17-14.”


The rest of this article extolled the virtue of great defence. And how true it is. It is the defence that usually wins Super Bowls. Forty-two was no different.


It was my prediction that the NY pass rush would nullify Tom Brady – and it mostly did. I thought the Giants would be able to run on the Pats - and they did, though I admit not to the extent that I had thought they would.


Truth is: except for falling apart on the last NY drive, in no small part due to some excellent throws by Manning and excellent receptions by the NY receivers, the New Englanders might have won – and deserved to.


The Giants just about deserved their win. The Patriots were just about unlucky. The fans were the winners in what was actually quite a good game for the neutral observer to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it.


One commentator's view should be of particular interest to the Chiefs fans. The Giants won by playing their young players throughout the season. They gave youth a chance.

This makes good sense – particularly at the “monster” positions – offensive guards and tackles. Chiefs must beef up these area in the draft. Chiefs must avoid taking a marquee player early who may, or (worst case scenario) may not be able to contribute to the team for five years!!


Time for the Chiefs to avoid highly paid free agents and develop some players of their own. That's the noises that are coming out of Arrowhead.


When we see who's available as a free agent and whether the Chiefs can resist the temptation to go for an expensive quick-fix, we'll be a long way towards learning whether the Chiefs front office is serious about building a team – or just blowing smoke.


My abiding memory of the Super Bowl was the banged-up and inexperienced Giants secondary shutting out Brady and his receivers. Chiefs can do the same in 09!



Blogged with Flock

Friday, February 01, 2008

Bail

Magna Carta


Gary Weddell was out on bail and he (apparently) used this opportunity to kill his mother-in-law and then commit suicide.


See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3282898.ece for a good summary of this tragic case.


The ensuing outrage resembles a witch-hunt against the Judge involved and calls into question the whole relationship between suspect, police and judiciary.


First, let's see what the law says, or as much of the law as can be understood by we commoners. Magna Carta is a good starting point.


Found in: Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction > CHAPTER THIRTY–SIX. > paragraph 1221

As trial by combat became rapidly obsolete, the original purpose of the writ was forgotten, and its once subsidiary object became more prominent. Before Bracton’s day, this change had taken place: the writ had come to be viewed primarily as an expedient for releasing upon bail homicides per infortunium or se defendendo. Bracton, in giving the form of the writ,2 declares it to be iniquitous that innocent men should be long detained in prison: therefore, he tells us, an inquisition is wont to be made, at the request of sorrowful friends, whether the accusation is bona fide or has been brought de odio et atia. This pleasing picture of a king moved to pity by tearful friends of accused men scarcely applies to John, who listened only to suitors with long purses: the writs that liberated homicides had become a valuable source of revenue. Sheriffs were reprimanded for releasing prisoners on bail without the King’s warrant, but, in spite of heavy amercements, they continued their irregularities. Thus, in 1207, Peter of Scudimore paid to the exchequer 10 marks for setting homicides free upon pledges, without warrant from the King.3 In that year, John repeated his orders, strictly forbidding manslayers to be set free upon bail until they had received judgment in presence of the King’s justices.4



The barons were fed up with the King pocketing all the cash just so the accused could get out of jail whilst proper inquiries were made. So, they grabbed their chance in the Great Charter to try to force the King to grant bail even in capital cases (my italics).


The U.S. Constitution seems to guarantee the accused bail under the provisions of the Eight Amendment. But, as the following article points out, this is not usually available in capital cases.


http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-08/01-excessive-bail.html


Just to make things even more complicated, the European Court now has a say!



(2)

The requirement for “trial within a reasonable period or release pending

trial” is in fact two distinct and cumulative requirements. A detainee must

be tried within a reasonable period and has a qualified right to release

pending trial. The former need be of no concern.

23

In respect of the latter, the Court must be satisfied that there were

reasonable grounds for continued detention before a denial of bail can be

compliant. To determine the question, the Court concentrates on the

actual decision making process in the national court. Potentially good

grounds for denying bail include that

(a)

there is a danger that the defendant would fail to attend trial,

interfere with evidence or witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice, or

commit a serious offence;

(b)

it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation;

(c)

the defendant’s release would disturb public order; and

(d)

detention is necessary for the defendant’s own protection.

24

(3)

Release can be conditional on “guarantees to appear for trial”.

2


The ominous point here is (b) “for the purposes of the investigation”. D seems more than a bit subjective as well.


The summation is rather problematical. I remember attending a session at the Royal Courts of Justice with my father-in-law, who was a probation officer. This was many years ago, yet I believe the experience hasn't changed much!


What struck me as more than odd were the bail arrangements – or lack of them if you prefer. The Crown would read the charges against the defendant and then the judge would ask if the defence would like to make any applications? The defence would invariably apply for bail. The Judge would ask for a police report. The police would outline how many time the defendant had been arrested and charged with whatever.


That's arrested and charged – not convicted!


The Judge would always say the same thing. Application denied.


Things must have radically changed for Mr Weddell to have received bail so easily.


Or, have they? Perhaps, is this yet another case of the “Establishment” looking after one of its own?


Here we have Mr Weddell, an ex-police officer, out on bail after being charged with murder. I'd like to know how many others who face similar charges were bailed last year? Then we might be able to make a convincing case for justice one way or the other.


And, where are the statistics for prisoners having bail applications approved from various socio-economic groups? Must you be an upstanding member of the community or an ex-police officer to get bail?


It's possible we haven't really made much progress since King John.


People who are on remand for months and years awaiting trial are longing for Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act to get them bailed.


They wait in vain. In light of this case it's likely that the government will make it even more difficult to get bail.


Let's hope you and I don't get arrested by mistake.







Blogged with Flock

Bail

Magna Carta


Gary Weddell was out on bail and he (apparently) used this opportunity to kill his mother-in-law and then commit suicide.


See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3282898.ece for a good summary of this tragic case.


The ensuing outrage resembles a witch-hunt against the Judge involved and calls into question the whole relationship between suspect, police and judiciary.


First, let's see what the law says, or as much of the law as can be understood by we commoners. Magna Carta is a good starting point.


Found in: Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction > CHAPTER THIRTY–SIX. > paragraph 1221

As trial by combat became rapidly obsolete, the original purpose of the writ was forgotten, and its once subsidiary object became more prominent. Before Bracton’s day, this change had taken place: the writ had come to be viewed primarily as an expedient for releasing upon bail homicides per infortunium or se defendendo. Bracton, in giving the form of the writ,2 declares it to be iniquitous that innocent men should be long detained in prison: therefore, he tells us, an inquisition is wont to be made, at the request of sorrowful friends, whether the accusation is bona fide or has been brought de odio et atia. This pleasing picture of a king moved to pity by tearful friends of accused men scarcely applies to John, who listened only to suitors with long purses: the writs that liberated homicides had become a valuable source of revenue. Sheriffs were reprimanded for releasing prisoners on bail without the King’s warrant, but, in spite of heavy amercements, they continued their irregularities. Thus, in 1207, Peter of Scudimore paid to the exchequer 10 marks for setting homicides free upon pledges, without warrant from the King.3 In that year, John repeated his orders, strictly forbidding manslayers to be set free upon bail until they had received judgment in presence of the King’s justices.4



The barons were fed up with the King pocketing all the cash just so the accused could get out of jail whilst proper inquiries were made. So, they grabbed their chance in the Great Charter to try to force the King to grant bail even in capital cases (my italics).


The U.S. Constitution seems to guarantee the accused bail under the provisions of the Eight Amendment. But, as the following article points out, this is not usually available in capital cases.


http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-08/01-excessive-bail.html


Just to make things even more complicated, the European Court now has a say!



(2)

The requirement for “trial within a reasonable period or release pending

trial” is in fact two distinct and cumulative requirements. A detainee must

be tried within a reasonable period and has a qualified right to release

pending trial. The former need be of no concern.

23

In respect of the latter, the Court must be satisfied that there were

reasonable grounds for continued detention before a denial of bail can be

compliant. To determine the question, the Court concentrates on the

actual decision making process in the national court. Potentially good

grounds for denying bail include that

(a)

there is a danger that the defendant would fail to attend trial,

interfere with evidence or witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice, or

commit a serious offence;

(b)

it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation;

(c)

the defendant’s release would disturb public order; and

(d)

detention is necessary for the defendant’s own protection.

24

(3)

Release can be conditional on “guarantees to appear for trial”.

2


The ominous point here is (b) “for the purposes of the investigation”. D seems more than a bit subjective as well.


The summation is rather problematical. I remember attending a session at the Royal Courts of Justice with my father-in-law, who was a probation officer. This was many years ago, yet I believe the experience hasn't changed much!


What struck me as more than odd were the bail arrangements – or lack of them if you prefer. The Crown would read the charges against the defendant and then the judge would ask if the defence would like to make any applications? The defence would invariably apply for bail. The Judge would ask for a police report. The police would outline how many time the defendant had been arrested and charged with whatever.


That's arrested and charged – not convicted!


The Judge would always say the same thing. Application denied.


Things must have radically changed for Mr Weddell to have received bail so easily.


Or, have they? Perhaps, is this yet another case of the “Establishment” looking after one of its own?


Here we have Mr Weddell, an ex-police officer, out on bail after being charged with murder. I'd like to know how many others who face similar charges were bailed last year? Then we might be able to make a convincing case for justice one way or the other.


And, where are the statistics for prisoners having bail applications approved from various socio-economic groups? Must you be an upstanding member of the community or an ex-police officer to get bail?


It's possible we haven't really made much progress since King John.


People who are on remand for months and years awaiting trial are longing for Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act to get them bailed.


They wait in vain. In light of this case it's likely that the government will make it even more difficult to get bail.


Let's hope you and I don't get arrested by mistake.







Blogged with Flock